JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner-workman aggrieved by an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court') dated 3rd October, 1997, which was published on 22nd October, 1997, passed in adjudication case No. 45 of 1996, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-T to the writ petition.
2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication :-
"Whether the management of Northern Railway is just in refusing regularisation of employment of Shri Shiv Sagar, S/o Shri Bhagwan Das as a regular fitter in the open line at present employed as a ad hoc fitter under C.T.F.O. (Construction) of the management? If not, to what relief the worker concerned is entitled to?".
3 The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the concerned workman was appointed as Electric Khalasi on 21st November, 1980. He was given temporary status with effect from 1st January 1984 in the grade of Rs. 196-232 and the work of Electric Fitter was being taken from him with effect from 15th September, 1994 and he has been promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 by the order dated 1st January, 1987 as T.S. Fitter. He further contended that the work and conduct of the workman was found to be satisfactory by the Respondents and no complaint whatsoever has been alleged against the workman. He again stated that other similarly situated employees have been regularised, but workman concern's services have been terminated.
4 The employer have filed their reply, in which they have stated that the workman was engaged only as a casual fitter by way of local temporary arrangement and have also denied that the work was taken continuously with effect from 15th September, 1984. The Labour Court has rejected the case set up by the workman that he was working as Electric Fitter with effect from 21st November, 1980 solely on the ground that there is only oral evidence of the workman and no documentary evidence. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the witness was cross-examined, but no such suggestion has been put in. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Labour Court suffer from the manifest error of law and are wholly erroneous.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-workman has relied upon a decision reported in 1986 Supreme Court Cases (L and S) 226, Narendra Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., in which it has been held :-
"It is not fair to say at this distance of time that the Government was only keeping them in their posts as a matter of grace. The continuance of the promotees-petitioners may be justified on the basis of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1961 on the assumption that the Government had relaxed the Rules and appointed them to the posts in question to meet the administrative requirements. The effect of sticking to the quota Rule as found in Rule 8(1)(a) even though there had been a deliberate deviation from it would have been enormous prejudice to the petitioners-promotees and other similarly situated promotees. The only just solution to this problem is to treat the petitioners as persons duly appointed to the Service with effect from the day on which they were promoted. But for no fault of the petitioners and the officers similarly situated their cases for promotion were not considered by DPC every years and even those who had been found fit by the DPC for promotion had to wait for nearly 15 years to get into the 'regular' service through a select list prepared by the DPC. By omitting to take into account the service put in by the temporary departmental candidates till the date on which the DPC took up their cases for consideration for promotion on the ground that they had not completed four years of regular service in the feeder posts as on a specified date of years back, the DPC violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India."
6. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Labour Court in accepting the employer's case that the temporary status given to the workman cannot be taken into account for the purposes of regularisation, is erroneous, thus, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court dated 3rd October, 1997 is quashed. The Labour Court is directed to decide the matter taking into account the services rendered by the workman and also for regularisation of the services of the workman concerned. Since the matter is fairly old, therefore, the Labour Court is directed to decide the same in the light of the observations made above in this judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.