- (1.) Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, learned standing counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Vipin Chandra Pal, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 to 43.
(2.) The petitioner no. 2 is a department of Archaeological Survey of India which itself falls under the Ministry of Culture, Government of India and is assailing the award dated 27.11.2012 passed in Adjudication Case No. 96 of 2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
(3.) Briefly stated the case of the respondents no. 3 to 43-workmen is that they were working in the Garden Branch of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI for short), Agra during 1.8.1987 to 31.1.1997 from time to time. Their services were dispensed with w.e.f. 1.2.1997 and thereafter they have not been re-engaged in service as per their seniority in violation of the provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the workmen is that they were engaged in the maintenance of Garden and other related work of a perennial nature and work being available they were entitled for re-employment. The Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and one of the pleas of the ASI before the Tribunal was that it is not an "Industry" within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, 1947 and it was also stated that none of the workmen had completed 240 days continuous service in a calender year and infact some of the workmen had never been engaged at all and therefore the question of their retrenchment or compliance of Section 25 F of the Act, 1947 did not arise.;