SANDEEP MEHTA - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Dan SIngh has approached this Court being aggrieved of the award dated 18.9.2000 passed by the Central Govt. Industrial and Labour Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'CGIT') in Industrial Reference No. 151/96 whereby, the Tribunal rejected the labour reference instituted at the instance of the petitioner workman challenging the termination of his services by the respondent Food Corporation of India.
(2.) The petitioner raised a labour dispute against his socalled termination/illegal retrenchment by the respondent Corporation upon which, conciliation proceedings were undertaken but failed. The Central Govt. referred the matter to the CGIT under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner workman set up a case in his statement of claim that he was engaged by the respondent Corporation as a Casual Labour/Watchman on daily wages between 15.9.1979 to 20.5.1980 and that by an oral order dated 20.5.1980, his services were terminated without following the mandatory requirements of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents filed a reply to the claim petition claiming that the petitioner was not engaged as a Watchman but rather, was engaged as a labour on 15.9.1979. He worked for a period of 182 days only. He abandoned services and did return not return to work in the corporation thereafter. He was not present in the office on 20.5.1980. A pertinent objection was raised that the industrial dispute was raised after an inordinate delay of almost 17 years and thus, the same should be dismissed. The Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration. The petitioner submitted his affidavit and examined himself in support of the claim. On the basis of the available record submitted by the respondents, the Tribunal concluded that the workman worked for a period of 240 days with the respondents during the disputed period. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner himself did not come to the office of the respondent on and after 20.5.1980 and thus, it was a case of abandonment of service. The Tribunal also held that the claim set up by the petitioner that the respondents engaged/retained persons junior to him in service after his termination to be untenable because the three persons viz. Omprakash, Sita Ram and Sabir whose names were taken by the petitioner in this regard were admittedly working in the office from much earlier than the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner 's assertion in this regard was also turned down and the reference was answered in the negative. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record and the impugned award.;