S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad (hereinafter to be referred as 'M.A.D.A.') against the Award dated 27th December, 1999, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, pronounced on 17th October, 2000, in Reference Case No. 6 of 1996, whereby, the concerned workmen/respondent Nos. 2 to 13 have been reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 13 having died, his heir has already been substituted in his place vide order dated 22nd February, 2006.
(2.) THE following plea have been taken by the petitioner to assail the judgment/award: (i) The workmen having not completed 240 days of continuous service, were not entitled to any benefit under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) The services of the respondents having been terminated on the ground of illegal appointments, no discrimination can be alleged on the ground of retention of junior workmen in service; (iii) Except respondent Nos. 2 and 7, the decision rendered by the High Court in regard to the termination, in question, being binding between the parties i.e. rest of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and 8 to 13, determination of the same issue i.e. the question of legality and propriety of the order of termination was barred by the principle of res judicata; and (iv) The reference having been made after long delay i.e. after more than fifteen years, the respondents should not have been reinstated with full back wages. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 13, in support of the Award, made the following submissions: (i) The order of termination was violative of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the principle of 'first come last go' having not been followed; (ii) Performance of 240 days of continuous service is not necessary to give the benefit under Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and (iii) Even the observations, made by the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Dipak Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. v. The Jharia Mines Board C.W.J.C No. 158 of 1984(R), have not been followed.
(3.) COUNSEL for the contesting respondents also relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (a) Swadesamitran Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in : (1960)ILLJ504SC , and The Workman of in S.T. Estate v. S.T. Estate reported in : (1964)ILLJ333SC , in support of the submission that the rule of 'last come first go' should be followed and non -compliance with Section 25G also renders the retrenchment invalid. (b) Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam reported in 1996 L.I.C. 224 (SC) to suggest that principle of continuous service of 240 days is not required to be seen for granting the benefits under Section 25H or Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reliance was also placed on other decisions of the Supreme Court, including the case of Management of M.C.D. v. Prem Chand Gupta reported in : (2000)ILLJ533SC to show that the termination on the ground of illegal appointment also amounts to retrenchment, as defined under Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947, and the provisions of Section 25G are required to be followed.;