- (1.) This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 93 and 94 of 2011 as it is stated that both the appeals involve common question.
(2.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 93 of 2011 has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2010 upholding the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in favour of the workman.
(3.) The workman was employed with the appellant-management. He worked from 28.2.1983 to 15.11.1984 as temporary employee and thereafter as regular employee from 16.11.1984 onwards. Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) having been introduced for employees who have rendered more than ten years of service, the workman opted for the said scheme and retired from service on 18.8.2002. The scheme contemplated giving of salary calculated with reference to years of service put in. While giving the said benefits, the period of service from 28.2.1983 to 15.11.1984 was ignored even though gratuity was paid for the said period. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. Management opposed the claim by stating that period prior to regularisation into service could not be counted as part of service. The Labour Court upheld the plea of the workman as follows :- "Every workman was initially appointed for three months by the appointment letter. Appointment letter in ID No. 65/2009 Shri Bhagwan Singh v. Central Warehousing Corporation is on record. The appointment letter M2 shows that initial appointment was for three months on contract basis in the pay scale of Rs. 196-3-220-8-232. On expiry of three months period every workman continued to work and their services were regularised on 15.4.1984. Every workman has continuously worked with the management and there has been no break in the services on their initial appointment and the regularisation of services. When any document is subject to the construction, any clause, phrases or words used in the document should not be constructed in isolation. The meaning of words, phrases or the sentence has to be gathered from the entire text of the document. The term contractual 'chowkidar' written in the document M2 cannot be constructed in isolation. It has to be construed on the basis of the entire text of the document. The intention of the legislature in M2 is also the paramount consideration. On perusal of the M2 and the evidence on record, it is clear that workmen were appointed for a fixed period of three months on the same pay scale which was was applicable to the regular employees. Wages were paid by the department and not by any contracting agency. Both of the workmen were under the administrative control of the management and not of any agency. Both of the workmen had worked continuously till the date of regularisation and their services were regularised by the management as per the rules. The special voluntary retirement scheme under which every workmen has opted for the voluntary retirement is on record. It is specifically mentioned in the scheme that in respect of computation of the services the computationist who were absorbed in Central Warehousing Corporation, the period of services rendered on deputation if any, shall not be treated as part of the services for the purpose of this scheme. Thus, the scheme only barred the services rendered on deputation for commutation. Services rendered otherwise can be subject to the commutation. As stated earlier, both of the workmen were paid wages directly by the management and they were under the administrative control of the management. Non computation of the services rendered by them prior to the date of regularisation is illegal.";