M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) PETITIONER who is the managment of Damodar Valley Corporation prayed for quashing the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case no. 22 of 1989, whereby he has answered the reference in favour of the workman holding that the termination of the services of the workman from 21.2.84 was wholly unjustified and directed for reinstatement and also for payment of arrears of wages and current wages.
(2.) IT appears that by notification dated 25.2.87 the following dispute were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication: (i) Whether the retrenchment of Sri Binay Kumar, Technician Gr. Ill from 21.2.84 is justified? If not, whether he is entitled to re -instatement or/any other relief? (ft) Whether the non -payment of wages of Sri Binay Kumar for the period from 24.2.81 to 21.2.84 is justified? If not, whether he is entitled to get the wages of that period. From the Award, it appears that the Labour Court answering both the terms of dispute in favour of workman held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement on the post of technician Grade III and also entitled to wages from 24.2.1981 to 21.2.84 with 10% interest. However, it is held that workman will not be entitled to get any salary for the period after 21.2.84.
(3.) FROM the case of the management, it appears that the relationship between the employer and employee (employer and workman) was denied and disputed and it was contended by the management that since the concerned workman cannot be deemed to be a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, the reference itself is illegal and unjustified. It was the case of the management that the workman was never engaged by the management to work as casual employee rather his service was taken time to time on temporary basis. On this issue evidence was adduced and the court below recorded finding of fact. From the own documents of the management which have been annexed as Annexure -8 series to the writ application, it appears that petitioner was taken into service on 24.2.1981 and since then repeated correspondences were made for payment of his outstanding dues and for approval of his appointment. Be that as it may, the finding recorded by Labour Court is based on finding of fact and therefore this court cannot re -appreciate the entire evidence for coming to a different conciusion.;