- (1.) Instant petition is directed against the award passed by Industrial Tribunal [Central], Kota dt. 17th May, 1995 [Ann. 8] whereby the alleged termination given effect to w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 was held to be arbitrary and violative of Section 25F of the Act, 1947. As a consequence whereof, workman was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service along with back wages. Respondent-workman when retrenched w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 while working as Casual Khalasi raised a dispute, which was referred by the appropriate government vide its notification dt. 11th February, 1988, is reproduced as under: Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota to retrench Shri Ram Charan w.e.f. 1.4.1979 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief workman is entitled to?
(2.) In the statement of claim submitted by respondent-workman, it was alleged that he was engaged as Casual Khalasi initially from 29th March, 1974 and had worked upto 31st October, 1975. However, he was not allowed to continue any further. Thereafter, he was re-engaged as Casual Khalasi on 21st November, 1975 and intermittently worked in different spell, details of period during which he worked have been referred by him in his statement of claim and it has also been reproduced by learned Tribunal in Para 2 of its award that too discloses that he worked intermittently from 1976 to 1979. As regards last period during which he worked was from 1st December, 1978 to 31st March, 1979 and w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 he was not allowed to continue to work as Casual Khalasi. However, the period which was alleged by respondent-workman during which he worked from 29th March, 1974 to 31st October, 1975 has also been disputed by defendant-petitioner in their written statement and no contrary documentary evidence came on record in support thereof.
(3.) Learned Tribunal finally recorded a finding that since the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days during the period from 1974 to 1975 and even if he had worked, thereafter, intermittently upto 31st March, 1979, details of which have been referred to in Para 2 of the award. Petitioner was under an obligation to comply with Section 25F of the Act, 1947. Since indisputably it was not complied with, action of petitioner was in violation of Section 25F of the Act. As a consequence whereof, alleged retrenchment was declared to be bad in law and workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service along with back wages.;