RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY order dated 6.11.2007 three weeks and no further time was granted for filing rejoinder affidavit as a last opportunity and case was peremptorily listed today. It appears from the order -sheet that earlier also time was allowed on 17.9. 2007 for filing rejoinder affidavit but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed till date. Sri Tarun Verma further requested that the matter may be decided on merits without rejoinder affidavit. The prayer is allowed. The Court in view of the prayer of the counsel is proceeding to hear the case. This petition has been filed against award dated 11.8.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum -Labour Court Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar U.P. in Industrial Dispute No. 95 of 1997. The facts of the case are that the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide notification No. 41011/1/96/1.R.B dated 30.6.1997 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal - whether the action of the management of North Eastern Railway in terminating the services of the workman Sri Rajedra Shahi and 18 others (list annexed) and also the action of the management in not taking the payment to the workmen are legal and just? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled? The claim of the workmen before the labour court was that they were employed by the management against vacant posts for performing permanent nature of work. The workman alleged to have been working continuously for more than 120 days in each year and according to the rules applicable to them a workman who has worked for more than 120 days of continuously in service, is entitled to be given temporary status. The railway is obliged to provide him work to such temporary employee regularly. However, instead of giving them temporary status, the petitioners were issued casual labour service card though they were paid full wages as regular temporary workman.
(3.) IT was further claim of the workers before the labour court that on intervention of the labour authority temporary status granted to them by the employers. However, their services were dispensed with w.e.f. 16.10.1993 by an illegal action without any opportunity of hearing to the workers.;