RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 58/1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) whereby, the reference was answered in favour of the Management/respondent holding that the demand of the petitioner for reinstatement in the employment as Overman in Basudeopur Colliery and full wages for the work done by him during 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 is not justified.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he completed his Overmanship examination from Bhaga Mining Institute and was sent for vocational training at Basudeopur Colliery of M/S BCCL from 23.03.1991 to 06.05.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to undergo Post Diploma Practical Training (PDPT), (Mining) for the subsequent period i.e. from 07.05.1991 to 05.05.1992 and for that period he was paid stipend. It is claimed by the petitioner that after completion of two years' training, he was allowed to perform regular and permanent duty of an Overman against regular and permanent vacancy from 06.05.1992 and he worked till 17.05.1993 with full satisfaction of the Management. However, when the petitioner started demanding regular wages of Overman, he was stopped to work after 17.05.1993. The petitioner represented the Management, but of no avail and then he raised an industrial dispute, which was finally referred to the learned Tribunal vide Reference No. 58 of 1997. The term of the reference was "Whether the demand of the workman Shri Bhola Singh regarding reinstatement in the employment as Overman in Basudeopur Colliery and full wages against the work done by him during 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?" The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad answered the reference vide order dated 25.08.2009 in favour of the Management holding that the petitioner was never appointed in the Basudeopur Colliery and as such the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and wages is not justified.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award without considering the written statement, evidence on record and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that Ext. W-3 and the report of the Labour Enforcement Officer clearly indicate that the petitioner has worked continuously for the period from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 on the post of Overman. It is also submitted that the action of the respondent-Management is against the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It is further submitted that the certificate issued by the Management Witness No. 1 clearly shows that the petitioner worked continuously from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993. Admittedly, the petitioner worked in Basudeopur Colliery under the Management of M/S BCCL from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993, but thereafter he was arbitrarily stopped from working in the said colliery by the respondent-Management without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the said Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal committed serious error in answering the reference against the petitioner-workman and not reinstating him in service.;