- (1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant and counsel for respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE appellant, the Management, challenges the decision of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2263 of 1996(R) dismissing the writ petition filed by it, challenging the award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference No. 154 of 1993. The question whether the action of the management in not employing the writ petitioner and two others as per their circular dated 9.5.1986 was justified, was . referred to the Tribunal at the instance of the workmen. The further question was that if it was not justified, what relief respondent No. 2 was entitled to. One of the workmen, whose claim was also referred, died during the proceeding. The other workmen, Vis -wanath Mondal succeeded in getting another reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act and an award was passed in his favour. According to the writ petitioner, that award was accepted by the Management and Viswanath Mondal was absorbed as per circular dated 9.5.1986. The claim of the workman was that he had worked for 87 days, more than 75 days, as de -listed worker, and in the light of a circular dated 4.8.1980, he was entitled to be included as a Badli Miner/Loader. Apparently, such persons were given employment when the regular employees were not available to do the work or when additional work piled up. According to the Management, on 9.5.1986, another circular was issued under which it was permitted to employ Badli workers included as per the 1980 circular and persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe as Miner Loaders. Apparently, respondent No. 2 was not taken in by the circular dated 9.5.1986. It was in that context that the dispute was raised. It is the Case of the Management that the circular dated 9.5.1986 was also cancelled and there was no system of any Badli worker or Miner Loader, as contemplated by the Circular of 1980 and the circular of 1986.
(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal, Management raised a contention that respondent No. 2, the workman, had not been employed for more than 75 days so as to entitle him to included in the list prepared as per circular dated 4.8.1980. The workman marked Exhibits Ext. W/l and W/2 and examined himself. Based on those documents, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workman had discharged duties for 87 days during the period 1973 -76 and hence came within the purview of the circular dated 4.8.1980. But, thereafter, the Tribunal noticed that Badli miners/loaders were utilized as substitutes when a usual worker remained absent and respondent No. 2 was entitled only to be enrolled as Badli Miner/Loader and there was no question of any back wages being ordered or being claimed. But the Tribunal proceeded to hold that his entitlement as Badli miner/Loader would be a continuing one without any break. The Management, therefore, was directed to enroll respondent No. 2 as a Badli miner/Loader in continuance of the circular, apparently, dated 4.8.1980 (he has not specified it) giving retrospective effect to that direction but having no right to back wages.;