The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the divisional seniority list and held that the termination of the Respondents was in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present Writ Petition emanates from the common judgment dated 22.07.2008 ("Impugned Award"), passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi ("Labour Court"), in I.D. Nos. 117/1991 & 86/1991 titled as Shri Munshi Prasad & others v. The Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Railway Electrification Project. Vide the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court allowed the petition filed by the Respondents and held as follows:

"The action of management of DET (RE), New Delhi was not justified in terminating the services of S/Sh. Munshi Prasad, Mohan Lal, Ganesh Kumar, Ram Sagar, Badri Prasad, Mewa Lal, Shanshyam Sharma, Gajanand Dwarikalal, Suresh Prasad, Lalendra Kumar and Shatrughan and also not preparing correct seniority. The management should give temporary status to these workmen w.e.f. the date of termination of their services. The management should reinstate the workmen along with 25% backwages w.e.f the date of retrenchment within two months from the date of the publication of the award.

The action of the management of DET (RE), New Delhi in terminating the services of S/Shri Kesheo Deo, Sukhbir Singh, Baboolal, Jawahar Lal, Pooran Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Mahabir Singh, Prem Singh, Shiv Charan, Netrapal Singh, Raman Lal, Hardam Singh, Geetam Singh, Shashipal Singh, Jaipal Singh, Bani Singh, Sant Pal, Beeri Singh, Bhagwat Prasad, Bhatwat Singh, Ashok Kumar, Suresh Chandra, Shiv Prakash, Ram Prakash, Roop Singh and Umed Singh is not justified. The management should give temporary status to these workmen w.e.f. the date of termination of their services. The management should reinstate the workmen along with 25% backwages w.e.f the date of retrenchment within two months from the date of the publication of the award."

The Petitioners vide the present petitions are inter alia praying to set aside the Impugned Award.

A brief sojourn of the factual matrix is as follows:

2. It is the case of the Respondents/Workmen that they were engaged as casual labours in Railway Electrification Project ("REP") where they worked with the Petitioner No.1 for the first time at Bharatpur Bayana Hindon, Gangapur Swain Madopur, Bundi, Kota, Ram Ganj Mandi etc. for almost 10 years. They further also claimed that they worked last at IPT Agra for more than 240 days.

3. It is further the case of the Respondents that on 07.05.1985, a Circular was issued by the Government of India with a direction to not remove workmen who were working in the P&D department. Subsequently, a Scheme dated 11.05.1985 was also introduced for the inclusion of Class D employees.

4. Later, the Respondents/workmen claimed that another Circular dated 17.10.1988 was issued to all desks of Telecommunication Division, telephone district and other Units including Civil Wing. It was mentioned in the above-mentioned Circular that a combined seniority list of all casual labours in respect of the Recruitment Unit would be maintained. Further, the Respondents also claimed that the list would include all casual labours working within the territorial jurisdiction of the Recruitment Unit for various functional Units such as telecom projects/maintenance/electrification/quality assurance etc., to which the workmen are attached.

5. Meanwhile pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., reported as 1990 Supp SCC 113, a Scheme namely Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989 ("Scheme 1989") was formulated by the Petitioners. It was specifically stated in the Scheme that "Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of atleast one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days' week).