- (1.) The Divisional Railway Manager, being aggrieved by the award dated 29th February, 1999, passed by the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Vadodara in Reference No. I.T. (Central) 3 of 1996, is before this Court.
(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present Writ Application are that the respondent-workman appeared before the learned Industrial Tribunal somewhere in the year 1996 with a submission that he was engaged and appointed by the Bridge Inspector on 21st December, 1979 and worked upto 29th December, 1982 and could not continue to work as he was orally removed. His further case was that he was called daily, but, no work was assigned to him. He also challenged the removal/termination submitting, inter alia, that juniors to him were retained in service and the policy of last-cum-first go was not followed. 2.1 The present petitioner appeared before the learned Industrial Tribunal and submitted that the workman was not removed from service, but, he left of his own, engagement of the workman was in a project work with a clear understanding that on completion of the project, the services of the workman would come to an end, and that the reference was barred by limitation. 2.2 The learned Tribunal below, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held that the respondent did not leave of his own, but, in fact, he was removed from the service, juniors to the petitioner were retained in service and on the date of removal, the project was not complete and that delay would not adversely affect the rights of the present respondent-workman. 2.3 The learned Tribunal, accordingly, directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with the benefits of continuity of service and also awarded payment of 75% of back-wages, including the increments and other consequential benefits.
(3.) Shri Mukesh Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised the very same contentions before this Court. Those are that the respondent-workman left of his own, present was a project work and delay should have defeated the case of the workman.;