RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the State Government against different awards passed by the learned labour court, but the issues raised therein are substantially same not only on law but on facts as well therefore they were taken up for hearing together and are now being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) IN S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 616/2002, a reference was made to the labour court by the appropriate Government on 3. 6. 1997 for adjudication on the question whether the removal of the respondent workman by the management Principal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Pratapgarh was legal and justified and if not, what relief and amount the workman is entitled to. The case of the workman before the learned labour court was that she was appointed on the post of ward boy on 28. 5. 1992 and worked with the management upto 31. 12. 1995 on which date she was removed by verbal order. Even though she has completed more than 240 days in their service, the management did not make compliance of the provisions of Section 25f of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947) prior to removal of the workman. The management contested the claim of the workman and contended that she was working only on part time basis for two to three hours in a day and a part time employee did not fall within the ambit of workman in the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947. The learned labour court on the basis of evidence in the case concluded that the respondent had completed more than 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date of her removal and in the light of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Yaswant Singh Vs. State of Rajastha (1989 (1) RLR 156) even a part time employee would be a workman for the purpose of INdustrial Disputes Act. The learned labour court therefore directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service and 70% back wages. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 617/2002, the reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned labour court on 1st May, 1997 as to whether the removal of the workman-respondent by Principal Medical Officer, Pratapgarh from their service w. e. f. 8th April, 1996 was legal and justified and if not what relief she was entitled to. According to her claim, she was appointed as wardboy with the management on 28. 2. 1992 and worked with them upto 31. 1. 1996. She was removed from service w. e. f. 1. 2. 1996. She had completed 240 days in the calender year immediately proceeding to the date of her removal yet the management did not make any compliance of the provisions of Section 25f of the Act of 1947. The claim of the workman was contested by the management who in their reply contended that the respondent-workman was never engaged on the post of ward boy. She was merely working on part time basis for two hours in a day for the work of cleaning and sweeping. Similar objection was also taken in this case that the part time employee could not be come within the definition of the working as given under Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947. The learned labour court on the basis of evidence adduced in the case held that the respondent workman completed 240 days in the calender year immediately proceeding to the date of her retrenchment and over ruled the objection of the management that a part time employee workman could not fall within the purview of the workman within the Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947 and directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity in service and 70% of the back wages. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/2002, also reference on an identical dispute was made by the appropriate Government on 1st May, 1997 to the learned labour court whether removal of respondent-workman by Principal Medical Officer, Partapgarh from their service was legal and justified and if not to what relief she was entitled to. In this case the claim of the respondent- workman was that she was engaged on the post of ward body on 28. 5. 1992 and worked with the respondent upto 31st May, 1992 and prior to her removal, compliance of Section 25f of the Act of 1947 has not been made although she has completed more than 240 days in the calender year just preceding to her removal. The management contested the claim of the respondent-workman on the plea that she was merely engaged on part time basis and work for two hours in a day for the purpose of cleaning of the office and that she had not completed 240 days. The learned labour court on the basis of evidence recorded in the case, concluded that the workman had completed 240 days and while relying upon the judgment of Yawant Singh (supra) held that even a part time employee would be a workman for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act. The learned labour court directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service with 70% of the back wages. This Court while issuing the notices to the respondents on 19. 2. 2002 in S. B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 616/2002 and 617/2002 while observing that in spite of the fact that the reference was made in respect of the termination of the service w. e. f. 31. 1. 1996, the labour court amended that date of termination and came to the conclusion that services of the workmen stood terminated illegally from 31. 12. 1995, stayed the operation of the impugned award. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/2002, this court while observing that no specific date of removal was mentioned in the terms of reference and therefore, the reference was vague and therefore nothing was required to be decided by the learned labour court, stayed the operation of the award in that case too. I have heard Shri Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Government and Shri R. S. Saluja, for the respondents.
(3.) SHRI Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate argued that the appointment of the respondent-workman was made only for the purpose of cleaning of the office on part time basis and they did not work on regular basis nor was their appointment was made on regular basis and therefore they could not be treated as working in the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947 and on that basis he further argued that there was no question of any violation of Section 25f of the Act of 1947 and further more the learned labour court could not direct their reinstatement in service because they were not appointed against any regular post, but were engaged only on part time basis for the work of cleaning of office. SHRI Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammon VS. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1764 and Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat vs. The Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd & Anr. Reported in AIR 1979 SC 1356 and on the strength of these judgments argued that the learned labour court had no power to travel beyond the terms of reference. SHRI Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate argued that the learned labour court has committed serious error of law amounting to an error on the face of record by altering the date of removal from 31. 1. 1996 as mentioned in the terms of reference to 31. 12. 1995 by describing this as typing error. Even if it is considered to be an error of this nature, learned labour court on its own could not correct it. The appropriate course for the learned labour court was to request the appropriate Government for desired correction in the terms of reference, if at all the same was considered necessary. Shri R. S. Saluja, learned counsel for the respondent argued that as per the law laid down by this Court in Yaswant Singh (supra) , even a part time employee would fall within the purview of workman for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He argued that evidence adduced in all the three cases conclusively proved that workman in each of the cases had completed 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date of their retrenchment and therefore compliance of Section 25f of the Act of 1947 was necessary. Findings recorded by the learned labour court on that aspect of the matter are not open to challenge because they are based on correct appreciation of the evidence. Whether or not the workman has completed 240 days is essentially a question of fact. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that merely because in two cases, the date of the removal was wrongly mentioned as 31. 1. 1996 in terms of the reference and the workmen had come out with a case in their statement of claim that the said date was 31. 12. 1995, this would not tantamount to travelling beyond the terms of the reference because the question referred to the court in essence was one relating to removal of the workman without making compliance of Section 25f of the Act of 1947. He argued that all these workmen were engaged on clear vacant post of ward body. In regard to the terms of the reference in third case, i. e. , S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/2002 merely because the date of removal has not been mentioned, if award has been passed taking the date as given in the statement of claim, this would also not amount to changing the terms of the reference. Appointment of all the workmen was made against the clear vacant post of ward boy and therefore, the direction to reinstate them was perfectly legal and justified. He further argued that the management did not raise any objection with regard to the terms of the reference and the change of the date of removal before the learned labour court. Shri R. S. Saluja, learned counsel for the respondent argued that in passing the award the learned labour court is fully competent to adjudicate upon the matters not only on the dispute referred to it, but also on matters which appear to be connected with or relevant to the dispute. Such a power, according to Shri R. S. Saluja, is to be found in Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act of 1947. Shri R. S. Saluja has in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Pal Singh Vs. State of U. P. AIR 2000 SC 537. He therefore argued that award passed by the learned labour court is perfectly just and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the record. ;