A. K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition against the Award dated 2. 4. 1996 passed by Labour Court-VII in 1. D. No. 611/88. Vide order dated 12. 9. 88 dispute was referred to Labour Court for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

"whether the termination of services of S/shri R. Mugum, Mariappan, Raman, Ganesh, Kupati, Neru, Abhimanyu, R. Raju, Mani, Raju Mani and Sampath is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

( 2 ) AFTER the pleadings the Labour Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioners are not workmen?

2. As per terms of reference.

( 3 ) ISSUE No. 1 was decided in favour of workmen holding that they were "workmen" defined in Section-2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as they had been working as Mali/casual Worker on muster roll. On merits, the Labour Court returned the finding of fact slating that the Petitioner-Management had terminated the services of S/shri R. Mugum, Mariappan, Bhupati, Abhimanyu, R. Raju son of Ramaswamy, Mani of son of Muthuswamy, Mani son of Marimuthu illegally and it amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section-2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as mandatory requirements of Section-25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with, the termination was illegal. In respect of Raman, Ganesh, Neru and Raju, no dispute award was passed as they had not proved their case. After holding termination to be illegal, Labour Court did not grant reinstatement and back wages and instead granted lumpsump compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 to some workers and Rs. 25,000. 00 to other workers by observing as under:

"for granting proper relief, the court has to weigh all the facts and circumstances and exercise judicial discretion properly whether to grant reinstatement or award reasonable compensation. In this case more than nine years have passed since the termination of the service of the workmen. The plea of the management is that there was no work and so these daily wages muster roll employees were not provided work we. f. 1-12-86. In these circumstances it is not in the ends of justice to award the normal relief of reinstatement with full back wages, in spite of fact that the management has not proved the workmen to be gainfully employed. In the opinion of the court considering the last pay drawn by the workmen, the period elapsed, the length of service of the workmen, the workmen R. Mugam, Mariappan, Bhupati and Abhimanyu and R. Raju, it would meet the ends of justice if these above workmen awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) in lieu of the relief of reinstatement and back wages. So it is held that termination of service of these above workmen is proved to be illegal and unjustified and they are entitled to relief of compensation ofrs. 50,000. 00 each and Mani son of Muthusway and Mani son of Marimuthu are awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000. 00 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) each to be paid by the Management".

( 4 ) PETITIONER-MANAGEMENT had challenged the aforesaid Award on the ground that workmen had not worked continuously for 240 days in any previous calendar year and provisions of Section 25 F of the Act were not applicable and further that they had left the job as per their own will and their services were not terminated. As far as last contention of the petitioner is concerned, it is clearly after thought inasmuch as plea taken by the petitioner in the Written Statement filed before the Labour Court is that the workmen could not be given work as there was no work at site. It is admitted that workmen had reported for work but they could not be given work while in the petition, it is now sought to be contended that the workmen left the Job as per their own volition. This is clearly an after thought plea and, therefore, rejected on this ground itself. The contention of the petitioner that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document