SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) Following reference was made by the Government to Labour Court under Section 10(l)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: "Whether the action of the Assistant Engineer, Pachana Irrigation Sub Division-II, Sri Mahaveerji District Sawai Madhopur in terminating the services of the workmen (as per list enclosed) (who are being represented by Joint Secretary Sawai Madhopur, District irrigation Employees Union, INTAC Sri Mahaveerji) w.e.f. September 1, 1998 is justified and legal. If not, what relief and amount the workmen are entitled to?"
(2.) The respondent workmen filed statement of claim before the Labour Court on February 27, 1992 inter alia stating therein that eleven workmen were appointed under the appellants management from May 1, 1986 on the post of Beldar. They worked with devotion and honesty from the date of their engagement and there was no complaint whatsoever against them. The appellant management however by verbal order dated September 1, 1998 terminated the services of all workmen. It was stated that each of the workman had completed more than 240 days service continuously and regularly in the employment of the management. Prior to termination of the services of the workmen neither notice of one month nor notice pay nor retrenchment compensation was paid to them. Thus compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was not made. No seniority list of the workmen was published prior to their termination and as such junior persons to the workmen remained in job. It was further stated that there was no shortage of work with the management and after termination of services of the workmen new workmen were engaged. The provisions of Rule 23 & 26 of the Work Charge Rules had not been complied with. Prior to termination of services neither any notice to show cause nor any preliminary enquiry was conducted against the workmen. It was stated that after termination of their services w. e.f. September 1, 1988 all the workmen are unemployed. It was, therefore prayed that the workmen be ordered to be reinstated with all back wages and continuity of service.
(3.) The aforesaid statement of claim was contested by the appellant management by filing written reply. While denying the averments made on behalf of the workmen, it was submitted that the statement of claim was filed on wrong and unfounded facts. In fact, the respondent workmen never worked with the appellant management. The respondent workmen in statement of claim did not mention anything about their place, time and other details of working. On the contrary, a vague statement was made that all respondent workmen completed 240 days.;