Daily wage earners are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and are entitled to the protection of section 25F of the Act.

This writ petition under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed on behalf of the Superintending Engineer, Rastriya Uchh Path Anchal, Muzaffarpur seeking to challenge an award given by the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur on a reference made to it under section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The subject matter of the reference was an industrial dispute regarding the propriety and justifiability of the retrenchment of 18 daily rated employees of Rastriya Uchh Path Anchal, Muzaffarpur.

2. The case of the employer before the Labour Court was, inter alia, that the concerned workmen were never appointed on a regular basis or even in the work charged establishment; they were only casual labourers engaged on daily wages and hence they were not entitled to any relief it was further the case of the employer that even as daily rated workers, their engagement was wholly irregular/illegal not being in accordance with the rules. In this regard it was stated that in terms of letter no. 14074 dated 25.7.1975 of the Public Works Department, Government of. Bihar, Patna and under Rule 60 of the P.W.D. Code, the Superintending Engineer was the competent authority for appointment of the work charged employees of his department but the said authority had been recalled and the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary and Chief Engineer had been vested the said power. In the light of the above, the engagements made by the local officers of the department were illegal and unconstitutional and for this reason the concerned workmen were retrenched with effect from 1.7.1981.

3. The labour Court on a consideration of the evidence and the materials brought before it recorded a finding that the management had failed to• prove that the recruitment of the concerned workman was illegal. The relevant passage from the award is as follows :

"In any case, there is no evidence to prove illegality of appointments of the workmen. Exts.W-1 series are letters of termination and indicate that these appointments were made by the Superintending Engineer and has worked upto the extended period. Exts. M2/1 indicate that the Superintending Engineer has agreed to recommend for promotion as work charged staff, and as such" he made such recommendations to the Chief Engineer but the same could not take effect because of this reference. Thus, on consideration of evidence on record, I find that the management has failed to prove illegality of recruitments of these workmen."

As regards compliance with the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for Short 'the Act',) it was an admitted position that no workman was paid, either ,one month's wage in lieu of notice or the retrenchment compensation equivalent to, 15 days' average pay of every completed year of service, However, in respect of ten out., of the eighteen concerned workmen, the Labour Court found that they had not completed 240 days of service and hence they were not entitled to the protection -of section 25F of the Act and, therefore, their retrenchment was proper and justified and they were not entitled to any relief As regards the eight others who had completed more than 240 days of service, the Labour Court found that in course of conciliation meeting held on 30-4-1981, it had been decided that the workmen would continue to work till 30-61981 and this; according to the Labour Court, would' constitute sufficient notice within the meaning of, section 25F(a) of the Act and hence here was no requirement of payment of a month's wage in lieu of notice. It, however, 'held that non-payment of retrenchment compensation to these workman was clearly a breach of the provision of section 25F (b) of the Act and for that reason alone their retrenchment was improper and unjustified and accordingly directed them to be reinstated with full back wages,

4. The learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner has sought to assail the award of the Labour Court on some grounds which may be summ