TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. S. Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel of the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner (M/s. Food Corporation of India), has challenged the validity or otherwise of the award passed on 8.8.1997 in Reference Case No. 24 of 1992 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal answered the reference against the Management and in favour of the workman by holding that : 'The action of the Management of Food Corporation of India, Ranchi, in not regularizing the services of the workman, Shri Suberen Sarkar and denying wages etc. equal to regular Class -IV employees with effect from 13.5.1982 is not justified. The Management is directed to regularize the service of the workman as Class -IV Watchman /Sweeper (as per documentary proof of educational qualification produced) from January, 1988 and to pay full back wages with all other benefits admissible to Class - IV employees minus the amount already paid to him from October, 1989 onwards within two months of publication of the award in the Gazette of India.' Mr. S. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the circular dated 6.5.1987 was not applicable, as the workman was a part time casual worker who fetched water in buckets filling pitchers in the district office at Ranchi and that he worked only for one or two hours in a day and got his payment on the basis of the number of buckets of water supplied and/or pitchers filled.
(3.) COUNTERING the submissions of Mr. S. Bakshi, Mrs. M.M. Pal has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 19, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of the impugned award and submitted that the Management, before the Tribunal, were not able to deny the contention of the Union representing the concerned workman that prior to 1989, he was being paid time rated on monthly basis, and that after MW 2 (Mr. R.C. Prasad) had joined as - District Manager, Food Corporation of India, and who worked from September, 1989 to September, 1993, it was he who had passed an order by which the system of payment to the workman on the basis of number of buckets filled was introduced, obviously to deny the claim of the workman and for this sudden change, no notice was given to the concerned workman. This Court finds from the observations of the learned Tribunal at paragraph 19 that this contention was argued by the concerned workman, but it was not replied to by the Management at all.;