ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -workman aggrieved by an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court') dated 3rd October, 1997, which was published on 22nd October, 1997, passed in adjudication case No. 45 of 1996, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure -'1' to the writ petition.
(2.) THE following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication: Whether the management of Northern Railway is just in refusing regularisation of employment of Shri Shiv Sagar, S/o Shri Ghagwan Das as a regular fitter in the open line at present employed as a ad -hoc fitter under C.T.F.O. (Construction) of the management ? If not, to what relief the worker concerned is entitled to? The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the concerned workman was appointed as Electric Khalasi on 21st November, 1980. He was given temporary status with effect from 1st January, 1984, in the grade of Rs. 196 -232 and the work of Electric Fitter was being taken from him with effect from 15th September, 1994 and he has been promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 950 -1500 by the order dated 1st January, 1987 as T.S. Fitter. He further contended that the work and conduct of the workman was found to be satisfactory by the Respondents and no complaint whatsoever has been alleged against the workman. He again stated that other similarly situated employees have been regularised, but workman concern's services have been terminated.
(3.) THE employer have filed their reply, in which they have stated that the workman was engaged only as a casual fitter by way of local temporary arrangement and have also denied that the work was taken continuously with effect from 15th September, 1984. The Labour Court has rejected the case set up by the workman that he was working as Electric Fitter with effect from 21st November, 1980 solely on the ground that there is only oral evidence of the workman and no documentary evidence. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the witness was cross -examined, but no such suggestion has been put in. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Labour Court suffer from the manifest error of law and are wholly erroneous.;