M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In these two writ petitions, since common questions of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

C.W.J.C. No. 4497 of 1997

2. In C.W.J.C. No. 4497 of 1997 the petitioner-Management of Food Corporation of India has challenged the award dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 108 of 1992 whereby he has answered the reference in favour of the concerned workman.

3. It appears that by order dated 1.10.1992 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has referred the following dispute for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, in retrenching Shri Hari Nandan Prasad, Ex-Casual Workman, in contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and denying reinstatement with full back wages and regularization of his service is legal and justified If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to "

4. The case of the workman is that he was worked in F.C.I. at Food Storage Depot, Jashidih from 1.6.1980 till 26.2.1983 and completed more than 240 days service within 12 calendar months. But he was stopped from work from 1.3.1993 without any notice, notice-pay and compensation which was illegal and in contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. After his retrenchment he filed several representations to the management for his reinstatement but it was not considered.

5. On the other hand, the case of the management is that District Managers of F.C.I. work under the control of Sr. Regional Managers who are under the control of Zonal Manager and that the District Managers are empowered to engage casual worker only upto 7 days and for the period more than that they must take permission from Sr. Zonal Manager or Zonal Managers. It is stated that the concerned workman was engaged as casual workman on 1.6.1980 by Sri. S.N. Kumar, Junior Engineer posted at Food Storage Godown when construction work was going on there and he was neither the competent authority to engage casual worker nor there was necessity for engagement of such casual workman. It is also stated that a temporary casual or ad-hoc employee can be regularized if there was permanent vacancy and if his initial appointment was through Employment Exchange and not through back door method. It is finally stated that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

C.W.J.C. No. 5857 of 1997

6. In C.W.J.C. No. 5857 of 1997, the following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication in Reference No. 96 of 1992 :

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Laheriasaria, Darbhanga in retrenching Shri Gobind Kumar Choudhary who was working as casual typist, arbitrarily and in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, and denying no instatement with full back wages and regularization of service is legal and justified If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to"

7. The case of the workman is that he was employed on 5.9.1986 as casual typist at District Office, Food Corporation of India, Darbhanga and worked there till 27.7.1990 and from 28.7.1990 he was stopped from his work and he was paid wages upto 15.5.1990 and thereafter no payment was made and his name was struck off from 15.5.1990. Further case of the workman is that he worked for more than 240 days during 12 calendar months but no notice or retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act was given to him.

8. The case of the management is that the workman was an independent professional typist doing the typing work in Civil Court premises, Laberiasaria, Darbhanga. It is stated that the management used to get some papers typed as and when required by the workman. In the year 1986 he was carrying on all typing job and performing other clerical job. He was not given typing work every day and he was neither a regular employee of F.C.I. nor the F.C.I. had any control on the workman.

9. Mr. Satish Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the management assailed the impugned award of reinstatement and regularization of service of the concerned workman as being illegal and perverse in law. Learned counsel, firstly, submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to law and also submitted that mere completion of 240 days service will not give a right of regularization to those casual workmen who entered into the service through back door method. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors. : (1992)IILLJ452SC , in the case of Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal and Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors., : (1996)IILLJ795SC , and in the case of Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors. v. P. Lakshmoji Rao and Ors. AIR 2004 Jhar. HCR 1065.

10. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the workmen, on the other hand, submitted that Tribunal after considering the facts and evidences brought on record came to a finding that the removal of the workmen was in contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and, therefore, the action of the management is illegal and malafide. Learned counsel also submitted that finding of facts as recorded by the Tribunal need no interference by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that in one case the management although regularized about 70-75 similarly situated causal workmen but the case of the concerned workmen was ignored. Learned counsel submitted that in another case after the award was passed the management took a decision to implement the award but because of pendency of the writ petition the order passed under Section 17-B of the Act, the award could not be implemented till date.

C.W.J.C. No. 4497 of 1997

11. In the instant case, I will first take up the award which is the subject matter of this writ petition. In this case, the concerned workman has examined himself and one Ram Lakhan Prasad another workman who was engaged at Regional Office of F.C.I. and the concerned workman has proved six bills which are marked as Exts. W-1 to W-1/5. Another witness Ram Lakhan Prasad has proved one chart under the signature of Asstt. Manager (Personnel) which is marked as Ext. W-2. It is further stated that after 1985 about 70 to 75 similarly situated casual workers were regularized in his Regional Office as Watchman and even 2 to 3 months back 5 to 6 similar casual workers were regularized. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence recorded the following findings :

"14. In this view of the matter I find that this plea of stale claim of he workman could not be taken in the present reference case. I find that certainly the action of the management was arbitrary and discriminatory and for not considering the case of the workman nothing specific and convincing plea has been taken on behalf of the management rather the document produced on behalf of the workman goes to support, his case in view of the own circular of the management and also in the ease that he worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar month he was entitled for regularization of his service and when, cases of similarly situated other workmen have, been regularized as per evidence of WW-2 which has not been denied by the management then certainly the case of the present workman also ought to have been considered by the management and his claim was quite justified and he was not at fault at all. I do not find any merit in the plea for not regularizing the service of the workman and the action of the management cant be said to be justified in any way."

12. Tribunal, therefore, held that the action of the management of F.C.I. in retrenching the concerned workman was illegal and in contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

C.W.J.C. No. 5857 of 1997

13. In this case also Tribunal considered the evidence at length and finally recorded a finding that the concerned workman worked for a long period i.e. from 1986 to 1990 and thereafter he was removed without giving him any retrenchment compensation. Finding of the Tribunal reads as under :

"15. After considering the documents, evidence and points of argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find much force in the plea taken by the workman that he had worked for long period from 1986 to 1990 May with the management, but he was paid less and without any rhyme and reason or without giving him any retrenchment compensation he was retrenched after 15.5.1990 and this action of the management cannot be justified. The plea that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties taken by the management also could not be established rather from the documents as discussed above, it is clear that the workman was working with the management for such four years and completed more than 240 days in more than one calendar year and he was entitled for regularization of service and his retrenchment after 15.5.1990 without notice or notice compensation was illegal and void abinitio and cannot be justified in any way.

16. Accordingly, I find and hold that the workman was entitled for the relief as claimed. However, it is clear that after 1990 May, he was not working with the management and as per Ext. W-6 there is still vacancy of English Typist in Bihar Region as on June, 1996, so he was entitled for his reinstatement from the date of his retrenchment."

14. Subsequent development, as pointed out by Mrs. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the workmen, is that after the award was passed on 18.12.1996 and modified on 18.2.1997, the authorities of the management examined the award in detail and accordingly took a decision to implement the award by reinstating the workman w.e.f. 15.5.1990, a copy of the decision taken by Regional Manager has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It further transpires that on 17.11.2000 an order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was passed in the writ petition and the management issued another letter dated 18.11.2000 withdrawing the earlier decision and did not implement the award.

15. These facts have not been denied or disputed by the petitioner-management. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the finding of facts as recorded by the Tribunal, I do not think it fit and proper to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

16. For the aforesaid reason, these two writ petitions are dismissed.