DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.K.Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C.Tewari, learned Counsel for the opposite party No 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned award rendered by Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are summarized as under:
(2.) THE respondent workman Sri Ram Misra was said to be engaged as lineman under Senior Electrical Foreman, Gonda on 28.11.1983 and he continued to work there up to 30.4.1987. A marching order was given to the respondent No. 1 on 30.4.1987. While passing the order dated 30.4.1987, neither any notice was given to the respondent No. 1 nor any compensation was paid in pursuance to the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) (in short the 'Act'). It was also stated by the workman before the Labour Court that the persons junior to him were retained and engaged at the time of adjudication of the controversy and ar? still continuing. Before the Labour Court, the management denied the gontinuity of duty of the respondent workman from 28.11.1983 to 30.4.1987. It was submitted by the petitioners before the Labour Court that the respondent No. 1 was engaged against sanctioned work on temporary basis and after expiry of the period, his sences were liable to be dispensed with. The defence taken by the petitioners before the Labour Court is that in view of the Circular dated 18.12.1980, there was ba? on fresh recruitment. Without prior approval ef the General Manager, it was not open to engage any person after 31.12.1980. It was also stated by the petitioners before the Labour Court that the respondent workman was,engaged after imposition of the ban. The other submission mad? by the petitioners before the Labour Court was that the dispute was raised after mor? than 12 years.
(3.) WHILE rendering the award, the Labour Court recorded a finding that engagement of private respondent as casual labour under the Electrical Foreman is not disputed. The Management has not disputed the authenticity of the record of service as casual labour, which was filed before the Labour Court. The entries were verified by the Electrical Foreman (Const.) from time to time. From the evidence on record, the Labour Court recorded a finding that respondent workmar had worked continuously for mor? than 240 days. The first plea of the petitioners that appointment of the respondent workman was illegal because of imposition of ban by Circular dated 18.12.1980, was repelled by the Labour Court on the ground that in view of the statutory provisions, the workman acquired temporary status by virtue of working for mor? than 240 days. The appropriate higher authority approved the private respondent's engagement on administrative side and it was done keeping in view the necessity to rationalize and regulate the intake of casual labours. It has been further observed by the Labour Court that without prior approval of the General Manager, the posts cannot be filled in view of the imposition of ban. The Labour Court recorded a finding that si?ce the private respondent had continuously discharged duty for more than 240 days, h? shall be entitled to be protected in pursuance to the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the question of delay, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the respondent workman continuously pursued the matter with the higher authorities and also sent lega? notice through Advocate. However, ventilation of his grievance through political personality was ill advised.;