- (1.) BY Court. -Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th January, 2004 passed in CWJC No. 1822 of 1997(R), whereby the appellant's writ petition challenging the award dated 26th July, 1996 passed in Reference Case No. 306 of 1986 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the workmen were not in employment and, therefore, the workmen could not have been regularized, nor there could have arisen question of regularization of the workmen because regularization can be of the employee, who are in service. It is submitted that there were no vacant post and, therefore, the workmen could not have been regularized. It is also submitted that it was the burden upon the workmen to prove their case that they worked for requisite day for getting the benefit of regularization.
(3.) WE have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given in the impugned award as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Since the award has been upheld then operative part of the award is operative, which clearly declared that the Tribunal cannot give any direction to the Management of the BCCL to absorb the workmen in the job, if no vacancy of that job or any other job of like category is vacant, right now. However, after so declaring, it has been observed that a direction is given to the Management to prepare a list as per the Annexure of the reference to regularize workmen within six months from the date of implementation of the award and during the intervening period they should be given job of casual nature of same category having equal pay of permanent employees without fail.;