M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties,
(2.) THE petitioner an employee, Department of Animal Husbandry, challenged the award dated 31st August, 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 7/98 whereby he has answered the reference in favour of the concerned respondents workmen. It appears that by notification dated 12.9.1998 the Labour Employees and Training Department, Govt. of Bihar referred the following dispute for adjudication. "Whether the termination from service of Shrab Sri Jameel Akhtar, Jayarat Ansari, Md. Asgar and Md. Shafique employed as casual labour from 12.2.1991 to 31.7.1996 is justified. If not, what relief they are entitled to -
(3.) THE case of the concerned workmen is that on 31.1.1991 they applied to the Management for their employment in the Pig Breeding Farm. Their application were considered favourably and they were appointed verbally as casual labour on daily rate basis w.e.f. 12.2.1991. They were engaged as Watchman and they served in that capacity till 31.7.1996. There was no break in their service and they work continuously for more than five years. They were paid Rs. 30.50 paise as daily wages. It was asserted that they were entitle to be treated as permanent workers as the job was regular in nature. But by order dated 20.7.1993 the management issued direction to all the head of the concerned departments to terminate the services of the employees, appointed on daily wages basis after 1.8.1985. This order was issued in terms of resolution dated 18.6.1993 of the Department of Personnel Administration Reform, Government of Bihar. The said order was challenged before the Patna High Court by one Akhil Jharkhand Karamchari Sangh in CWJC No. 2776/93(R). By order dated 10.9.1996 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State of Bihar as well as the Dept. of Animal Husbandry to consider the individual claim of the daily wages employee whose services have either been terminated or due to be terminated provided individual representation are filed by the aggrieved employees within two months. This Court further directed that the representation should be disposed of within three months. Further case of the concerned workmen is that they submitted representation for regularization of their services but the management did not consider their representation and ultimately terminated them from service w.e.f. 1.8.1996. According to the concerned workmen since the termination was illegal and void and in contravention of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, they raised a dispute with the management and ultimately the dispute was referred to Labour Court for adjudication.;