Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE instant batch of three writ applications, projects a challenge to the impugned award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for short), whereby the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the respondent -workmen holding termination of their employment on 24th May, 1997; as illegal and unjustified with a direction for reinstatement in service with it's continuity along with 50% back wages.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The respondent -workmen were appointed on 22nd May, 1996, by the petitioner -employer on daily wages basis, in response to notice inviting applications from eligible candidates. The appointment of the respondent -workmen was initially for 90 days and thereafter, it was extended from time to time, and they worked upto 23rd May, 1997. The respondent -workmen raised an industrial dispute for termination of their employment with effect from 24th May, 1997, was in violation of Section 25 -F, 25 -G and 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947'). On a reference made by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Act of 1947, the respondent -workmen submitted their statement of claim, which was responded by the petitioner -employer. Taking into consideration the pleaded facts, evidence adduced by the parties, and after hearing their representatives, the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 30th November, 2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner -employer reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application while the assailment of the impugned award asserted mainly on two counts. Firstly, for the Tribunal having taken in consideration the various opinions of the High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, concluded the findings by observing that in view of the principle propounded in the decisions, the objection to the claim, on behalf of the petitioner -employer, on the anvil of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947, could not acceded to. Secondly, the observations made by the Tribunal while answering the reference to the effect that the termination order dated 24th May, 1997, is illegal and unjustified, is an illegality for there was no order as such terminating the employment of the respondent -workmen. Reliance has been placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Samrala versus Raj Kumar:, (2006) 3 SCC 81.
(3.) PER contra; Mr. Dharmendra Jain, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent -workmen, supporting the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and reiterating the stand in the statement of claim as pleaded before the Tribunal, strenuously argued that the Tribunal has extensively dealt with the law cited by both the sides. Further the Tribunal made a threadbare analysis of the evidence and the pleadings of the parties, as would be reflected from the discussions made in the impugned award.;