A.S.NAIDU, J. - (1.) THE Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited has filed these Writ petitions, inter alia, assailing the Awards dated 8th February, 1995, Vide Annexure -4 to the respective Writ Petitions passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case. Nos. 116, 118, 121, 122 of 1991. As the common questions of law arise and the facts of all the cases are almost identical, all the Writ Petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) OPP . Party No. 2 workmen, in all the Writ Petitions were admittedly engaged as Mates by the Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited, Angul in the Timber Division of the Corporation which was then in the district of Dhenkanal. According to the workmen they had worked continuously during the period of employment till their services were terminated. They raised industrial disputes. Conciliation having failed , the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10, read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following disputes to the Labour Court for adjudication : Whether the refusal of employment to the workmen by the Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited, Angul, Timber Division in the district of Dhenkanal is legal and/or justified ? If not what relief the workmen are entitled. Before the Labour Court the workmen in their statements of claim took the stand that they had worked continuously for years -together but the Corporation without any rhyme or reason or without following the mandatory provisions stipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, all of a sudden, terminated their services. According to the workmen, such action was taken being enraged by the move made by the workmen to regularize their services. The workmen further submitted that before termination of their services neither notice was issued nor retrenchment compensation was paid to them and, as such, the orders of termination suffered from the vice of non -observance of the mandatory requirements stipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act and the same were liable to be quashed and the workmen were entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages.
(3.) THE Corporation in its written statement took the stand that the workmen were Seasonal Workers and they did not work continuously. They were engaged on daily wage basis as and when work was available. They had not completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year and, as such, issuing notice, or payment of compensation under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act to them did not arise. The Corporation submitted that reference should be answered in negative holding that the workmen were not entitled to any relief whatsoever.;