PER AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE Award dated 20 -4 -1996, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, in Reference Case No. 7 of 1992, is under challenge, in this writ application, at the instance of the Management of Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred as "D.V.C." for the sake of convenience) whereby, the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of the parties, held that eight workmen namely, A.K. Dey, Jaganath Karmakar, Dukhan Singh, R.A. Tiwary, Sita Moni, Narayan Giri, Aklu Manjhi and Gulam Hansda, were entitled for their employment against Class III post, with effect from 1 -5 -1988 and they shall be entitled for their emoluments and other facilities which were availed by the employees of Class III post minus the monetary benefits. The terms of the reference before the Tribunal was as under: - "Whether the following temporary workmen of Chandrapura Thermal Power Station engaged on daily wages should be regularized? If not, what relief they are entitled to?"
(2.) THE case of the workmen before the Tribunal was that certain number of casual workers including the concerned workmen used to be engaged in overhauling and maintenance of six turbo generators at Chandrapura Thermal Power Station (hereinafter referred as CTPS for the sake of convenience) and out of those persons, some were engaged in the year 1975 and some were engaged in subsequent years. In the year 1978, the D.V.C. introduced a scheme for regularization of those casual workmen who worked for more than 180 days, in a calendar year, in group 'C ' category and that the concerned workmen used to perform the job not only as Khalasi of Group "C" category but also even higher than that, that is to say the jobs which were performed by the technicians. It is stated that the candidatures of the concerned workmen were not considered and they were not empanelled in the casual categories for regular employment. The management of the D.V.C. subsequently issued office memorandum keeping a provision of absorption of casual workers in regular service in the year 1986, 1988 and 1990. It is stated that the concerned workmen ought to have been considered for regularization of their services in the light of the policies adopted by the D.V.C. It is stated that out of 21 concerned workmen, except eight persons namely A.K. Dey, Jaganath Karmakar, Dukhan Singh, R.A. Tiwary, Sita Moni, Narayan Giri, Aklu Manjhi and Gulam Hansda, the other persons were regularized by appointing them on the basis of the technician Gr. III. It is further stated that in the past management of D.V.C. regularized the services of 225 workmen engaged by the Contractors as regular khalasi in 'C ' category by creating so many regular posts in Grade 'C '. It is stated that the concerned workmen actually were engaged on daily wage basis, and they performed perennial nature of job and that there are vacancies in the post of Khalasi is Gr. 'C ' category against which the concerned workmen were entitled to be regularized. It is further stated that the concerned workmen have not been regularized in the job and were made victim of discriminatory treatment as well as they were deprived from fair and natural justice. On the other hand the case of the Management of the D.V.C. was that the concerned workmen were required to work at CTPS, D.V.C. under the control of CSO, DVC Maithan on casual basis as per requirement and that the concerned workmen were not performing jobs of perennial nature. It is further stated that the casual employees were to be empanelled for requirement for Class -Ill post had to complete 180 days as casual workers in D.V.C. on or after 1 -3 -1973 and panel was to be prepared by each field formation at D.V.C. and at CTPS panel for casual workers and others were prepared in the year 1978. It is stated that the names of workmen for whom dispute has been referred were not empanelled in the panel of casual workers at CTPS prepared in the year 1978. It is further stated the non -empanelment of the concerned workmen were asked to apply against the management 's advertisement for different posts according to their qualification, ex -, periences etc. and they were interviewed by the Interview Board constituted by the Management and good number of them were employed in D.V.C. and rest could not get employment due to non -selection by the Selection Board. It is further stated that none of the concerned workmen is presently working at CTPS as casual workers and therefore, the question of regularization of their services does not arise. It is further stated that the services of other workmen except eight concerned workmen were not regularized but they were selected by the Selection Board through the selection tests for the post for which they had applied for and subsequently they have been appointed. The concerned eight workmen were not called for interview as they were not fulfilling the requisite requirements in accordance with the terms and conditions! mentioned in the advertisement.
(3.) BOTH parties led their, evidences both oral and documentary in support of their claims.;