SUSANTA CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the applicant challenges the Award dated May 31, 1991 of the Industrial Tribunal, Port Blair pursuant to the reference dated April 25, 1990 under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since made by the Lt. Governor (Administrator ). Andaman and Nicobar Islands for adjudication of the dispute;"whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Rural Division, Rangat in retrenching 273 workmen with effect from April 1, 1989 is legal and justified, and if not, to what relief, are the concerned workmen entitled?"

( 2 ) THE Presiding Officer considered three issues: (1) Is the reference maintainable? (2) Were the workmen retrenched as stated by the first party? If so, was the retrenchment with effect from April 1, 1989 legal and justified? (3) To what relief, if" any, are the first party workmen entitled?

( 3 ) ASSIGNING the reasons the Presiding Officer has held that the retrenchment of the workmen with effect from April 1, 1989 is to be declared illegal, unjustified and void. He has held, inter alia, that the workmen numbering 273 cannot be treated to be disengaged from April I, 1989. There has been a direction for publication of the Award in the Official Gazette.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved the present application has been filed with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Affidavit is sworn on November 20, 1991. A rule was issued on November 22, 1991. The matter appeared before different Benches of the Circuit Court and time to time the part-heard matter has appeared before this Bench and the matter is disposed accordingly.

( 5 ) THE grievance of the applicant is that 273 respondents were daily rated mazdoors and they were all appointed on different dates and engaged for different work in connection with the execution and implementation of Rural Electrification work in the area including Rangal, Bakultala, Yerratta, Kadamtala, Baratang under the jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer (Ru-rai), Electricity Department, Middle Andaman vide Orders No. 18 dated January 4, 1989, No. 25 dated January 5, 1989, No. 26 dated January 5, 1989, No. 27 dated January 5, 1989, No. 28 dated January 5, 1989, No. 29 dated January 5, 1989, No. 112 dated February 1, 1989, No. 121 dated February 2, 1989. No. 126 dated February 3, 1989, No. 173 dated February 21, 1989 of the Executive Engineer (R), Electricity Department, Middle Andaman. A dispute against the alleged retrenchment was raised and Andaman and Nicobar Administration made the reference for effective adjudication by notification No. F75-73/88-Handr dated April 25, 1990. After filing of all statements, and giving full opportunity to both sides, the impugned order was made.

( 6 ) MR. A. S. Ray, the learned Advocate appeansig for the applicant, has argued before us that the impugned Award cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal has held, inier-alia, that the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workmen in the Electricity Department at Middle Andaman are to be made in accordance with S. 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. Chapter-VB of Industrial Disputes Act shall apply to an industrial establishment and under Section 25n, no workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in an industrial establishment shall be until,- (a) the workman has been given three months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; and (b) the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette has been obtained on an application made in this behalf.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Ray, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in view of the fact t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document