THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
W.A.Nos.56 and 57 of 2007
% 17.11.2014
Between:
# Mohd.Sadiq Ali. Versus $ Union of India and another.
... APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS < Gist:
> Head Note:
! COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT :- Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :- Sri R.S.Murthy ? Cases Referred:
1. 2002 (5) ALD 14 (SC)
2. (2010) Supreme Court Cases 126 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos. 56 and 57 of 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
These two appeals are filed against a common order, dated 08.02.2006, in W.P.Nos.14858 and 14861 of 1994. The appellants filed the respective writ petitions.
The genesis of the case is as under:
The appellants were engaged as casual labourers by the sole respondent on 01.10.1986. However, they were terminated on 31.05.1987. Feeling aggrieved by the termination, they approached the Central Government for making reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for ‘short the Act’). On a reference being made to the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Hyderabad, I.D.Nos.49 and 51 were taken on file. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal took the view that the retrenchment was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and accordingly, has set aside the termination and consequential relief of reinstatement into service with back wages and attendant benefits was granted. Challenging the respective awards, respondent No.1 filed the two writ petitions referred to above. It was pleaded that the engagement of the appellants was for specific period and in that view of the matter, Section 25-F of the Act does not get attracted. Reliance was placed upon certain precedents. The writ petitions were opposed by the appellants. Through the common order under appeals, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and has set aside the awards. Hence, these two writ appeals.
Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
There is no dispute that the appellants have been engaged as casual labourers in the year 1986. It is also not in dispute that they have been continued for a considerable time between 1986 and 1987. However, they were terminated from service, said to be due to lack of work. Once the Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellants worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year, the retrenchment ought to have been only in accordance with Section 25-F of the Act. The plea that the engagement of the appellants was for a specific period or specific work was not substantiated.
The learned Single Judge, however, proceeded on the assumption that the engagement of the appellants was for a specific work. The finding in this behalf reads as under:
“Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the workmen were engaged as Casual Mazdoors for the specific purpose of laying underground cables and construction of overhead alignments and they were disengaged after the completion of the work.”
It is important to note that the work was referred to in general terms and not of any particular description. It is only when the work is described in specific terms, such as laying underground cables between two specific points, or construction of overhead alignments at a particular place, are mentioned in the orders of engagement; that the possibility to invoke Section 2(oo) of the Act would exist, on establishing that the work so specified has been executed. Reference to the ‘ungrounded cables’ or ‘overhead alignments’ in general terms does not have the effect of taking away the rights of the appellants that are conferred upon them under Section 25-F of the Act.
The precedents relied upon by the learned Single Judge are in relation to the cases where the work was for a specific period or was of specific nature. For example, in Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Limited and another Vs. Ram Niwas and another[1], the work assigned to the concerned employees was till the stocks are disposed of in the godowns, or three months, whichever is earlier. Such is not the case here. Therefore, the very basis on which the learned Single Judge to set aside the awards cannot be sustained in law. Further, a writ petition cannot be treated as an appeal against an award passed by the Labour Court. It is only when the award is found to be perverse or contrary to the specific provision of law, that a possibility of interfering with the same may exist. We do not find such circumstances in the instant case.
The result of our conclusion would be that the award passed by the Tribunal stands upheld and respondent No.1 shall be under obligation to reinstate the appellants. It is brought to our notice that there is no much work with respondent No.1 and it may not be possible to it to engage the workmen. At any rate, the length of service rendered by the appellants before they have been retrenched is hardly one year. It is a different matter that they have been reinstated during the pendency of the proceedings in 1998 but were terminated on the writ petition being allowed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- for each of the appellants is granted in full satisfaction of their claim vis-à-vis respondent No.1. We derive support for this from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in In-charge Officer and another Vs.
[2]
Shankar Shetty .
Hence, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that in lieu of the relief of retrenchment and other attendant benefits, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) to each of the appellants shall be paid. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.
JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY DR JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO Dt:17.11.2014 Note: L.R. copy to be marked kdl
[1] 2002 (5) ALD 14 (SC)
[2] (2010) Supreme Court Cases 126