S.N.Sahai - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the award dated 25th November, 1985 (Annexure- 6), made by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 163 of 1983.
(2.) THE Central Government referred a dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal as to whether the action of the Railway Administration in relation to their Loco Shed Northern Railway, in terminating the Services of 110 casual workers as in Annexure with effect from 4th September, 1981 was justified and if not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled. THE case of the workmen was that they were recruited on different dates but all of them had completed more than 240 days of work in one calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment, which was without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation and further that no information was given to the appropriate government as required under section 25F (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was, accordingly, asserted that the termination of services of the workmen was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. THE Management went on taking time to file written statement and ultimately on 27th April. 1985 a stop order was passed and time to file written statement was allowed on cost upto 15th May, 1985. But the Management did not file any written statement and hence the case proceeded ex-parte. THE Tribunal considered the evidence produced on behalf of the workmen and in view of the principles laid down in Mohan Lal v. Management to M/s. Bharat Electronic Ltd., 1981, SCC (L and S), 47, held that the action of the Railway Administration in terminating the services of the workmen was not justified. THE Tribunal observed that the result is that the retrenchment being invalid and illegal, all the workmen are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. THE award was given accordingly. The petitioner has submitted that it came to the notice of the authorities that a large number of casual laboures were shown to have been engaged in the Loco Shed Northern Railway, Lucknow. The enquiry revealed that in the year 1980-81 about 2000 labourers were engaged extra whereas the actual strength of the staff is about 1500 persons. The Railway Administration on being satisfied that fraud had been practiced on it, referred the matter to Central Bureau of Administration, whose report is awaited. It is stated that later on the services of unsanctioned labour including the disputed workmen, whose names have been arrayed as opposite parties nos. 2 to 101, were terminated The case of the petitioner is that the question of giving retrenchment compensation to the persons, whose names were fraudulently shown as workman does not arise. With regard to the omission to file written statement, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity was given by the Tribunal to the petitioner to contest the case in spite of the fact that it was made clear that the matter is under investigation by C. B. I. and all the relevant papers have been seized and on 27th April, 1985, the Tribunal passed the order by which the right of the petitioner to defend the case was denied. The petitioner has filed a list of workmen as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, who have been working prior to 1981 and have been regularly paid and have been retrenched on 4th August, 1983. This list contains the names of 44 persons.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and find no cogent reason to hold that the right to file written statement and to contest the case was wrongfully denied to the petitioner. It will be evident from the observation made by the Tribunal in the impugned award that the petitioner itself is to blame for this state of affairs. The factual aspect of the case which has been presented on behalf of the petitioner in this court cannot be gone into. It was a matter to be examined by a fact finding body like the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, I find that there is no justification to interfere with the impugned award, which has been made by the Tribunal on the basis of the facts found by it to exist and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has invited my attention to Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank Industrial Tribunal, 1981 SCC (L and S), 309 and Satnam Verma v. Union of India, 1985 SCC (L and S), 362 and has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable because it has not been filed within 30 days of the publication of the impugned award. In view of the conclusion arrived at above, with regard to the merits of the case, it is not necessary to pass any order on technical ground alone.;