Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Pat) 1604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.N. HUSSAIN, J.
Shivdeo Chaudhoury son of Sri Yamuna Chaudhoury – Appellants
Nakul Chandra Pandit, son of Gahan Pandit – Appellants
Nageshwar Prasad Yadav, son of late Dhanushdhari Pd. Yadav – Appellants
Ravi Bhushan Pandey, son of late Chandrika Pandey – Appellants
Shatrudhan Singh, son of late ram Bachachan Singh – Appellants
Rajeshwar Bhagat, son of Shree Binda Bhagat – Appellants
Laxmi Kant Jha, son of late Lalan Jha – Appellants
Shatrudhan Paswan, son of Shri Shukhdeb Paswan – Appellants
Chandrika Ravi Das, S/o Dabav Ravi Das – Appellants
Dashrath Prasad Singh, S/o Devki Singh – Appellants
Vijay Yadav, S/o ram Laxman Singh – Appellants
Rajendra Paswan, S/o Ram Path Paswan – Appellants
Raja Ram Yadav S/o Charitar Roy – Appellants
Bhasa Prasad Singh, S/o Shiva Prasad Singh – Appellants
Baleshwar Bhagat, S/o Bhikan Bhagat – Appellants
Amresh Kumar, son of Shree Raj Ballabh Prasad Singh – Appellants
Md. Ibrahim, son of late Neezamuddin – Appellants
Kailash Paswan, son of late Jagat Paswan – Appellants
Md. Jail, son of Md. Gaffor – Appellants
Naresh Kumar, son of Shree Narayan Singh – Appellants
Shiv Dayal Saw, son of Shree Hanooman Sah – Appellants
Awadhesh Prasad Singh, son of late Nayan Singh – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1333, 1414, 2439, 2467, 2520, 2521, 2730, 2860, 5365, 5383, 5403, 5430, 5466, 6573, 1892, 1950, 1951, 2126, 2152, 2309, 2384, 1815 of 2008
Decided On : 19-12-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Corporation :Mr. Sourendra Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Harendra Pratap Singh, G.A.-8

Non-compliance with section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the impugned orders null and void, leading to the reinstatement of the petitioners with full back wages and other benefits.

Headnote:
Regularization - Casual Daily Wage Workers - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F, 25-FFF - The court discussed the applicability and implementability of the award dated 22.07.1988, which directed the Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioners. The court highlighted the non-compliance of section 25-F of the Act by the Corporation and its authorities, leading to the nullity of the impugned orders and the reinstatement of the petitioners with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, casual daily wage workers at the Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, sought regularization of their services after termination. The Corporation claimed financial crunch and non-functionality as reasons for termination.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Corporation's non-compliance with section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the impugned orders null and void, leading to the reinstatement of the petitioners with full back wages and other benefits.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability and implementability of the award dated 22.07.1988, and the non-compliance with section 25-F of the Act by the Corporation and its authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination of the petitioners' services amounted to retrenchment without compliance with the statutory requirements of section 25-F of the Act, leading to the nullity of the impugned orders and the reinstatement of the petitioners with full back wages and other benefits.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the Corporation was directed to reinstate the petitioners with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The Corporation was also directed to implement the award dated 22.07.1988, leading to the regularization of the petitioners' services.

ORDER

All these writ petitions are similar in nature, respondents are the same and the grievances of the petitioners are also the same as they are casual daily wage workers since several decades in the Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” for the sake of brevity) and the reliefs claimed by all of them are for regularization of their services after quashing letters of their termination dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-1 to all the writ petitions) issued by Managing Director of the Corporation and also for reinstating them back in service with full wages and other consequential benefits after regularization in terms of award dated 22.07.1988 (Annexure-2 to all the writ petitions) passed in Reference Case No.01 of 1987.

2. In the aforesaid circumstances all these writ petitions were taken up as analogous cases and learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents of all the aforesaid cases were heard together and these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

3. It is not in dispute that all the writ petitioners worked in the Corporation as casual daily wage workers for several decades and their services were terminated vide order dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-1) by Managing Director of the Corporation on the basis of the decision of Cabinet of Ministers in 2003 to dissolve the Corporation, which was followed by the decision of Agricultural Produce Commissioner dated 09.05.2006 to end the Corporation, which was communicated vide memo dated 20.06.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they had been continuously working since decades in the Corporation till the impugned order dated 03.07.2007 was passed and this fact had not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It was further stated that in the year 1986-87 the petitioners along with similarly situated daily wage workers had raised an industrial dispute through their Union, namely Bihar Fal, Sabji Vikash Nigam Karamchari Sangh for their regularization in service, whereafter the State Government referred it to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna where it was registered as Reference Case No.01 of 1987, which was contested at length by the petitioners and their co-workers on one side and the Corporation and its authorities on the other side, in which evidences were also led on their behalf.

5. However, after appraisal of the pleadings and evidences as well as the decision of Supreme Court dated 16.12.1987 passed in Civil Appeal No.1509 of 1987 the Industrial Tribunal, Patna found that the observations given in the said decision fully applied to the said reference case according to which those workers even if they had been appointed in irregular manner and had completed 240 days, their services had to be regularized and pronounced its award dated 22.07.1988 (Annexure-2), the concluding portion of which reads as follows:-

“I would, therefore, give a direction that the Corporation and the Representative of the Union or the workman himself if he so desires will sit together and prepare a list of persons from the record of the Corporation and Ext.66 (filed by the union and those who have completed 240 days according to the method of calculation indicated earlier their services will be regularized by the Corporation. This must be done within four months of the pronouncement of the Award. The Corporation will also prepare a scheme for regularization of those persons who have been working for more than one year as stated above and thereafter those whose services have been regularized will get their pay and allowances equal to the minimum pay in the scale of regularly employed persons in the corresponding cadre of Corporation. This will be effective from the date of the pronouncement of the Award.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid award was challenged by the Corporation in this court vide CWJC No.92 of 1989 and after hearing both the parties and after co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document