IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a worker's long service and acquittal from criminal charges necessitate fair treatment and reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The instant petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is against an Award dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati (CGIT) in Reference No. 05/2011. The petitioner herein is the Management.

2. As per the facts projected, the respondent no. 3 was working as a casual worker/Sweeper with the Management from 1981. On 08.05.1989, an incident of theft had occurred wherein an amount of Rs.46,405/- was found missing from the cash box of the Management. In the connected police case which was registered as Azara PS Case No.50/1989, the respondent no. 3 was arrested and was subsequently granted bail. On such arrest and detention, the service of the respondent no. 3 was discontinued. Though the charge sheet was filed in this case, vide an order dated 09.11.1990 passed by the learned CJM, Kamrup, the respondent no. 3 was discharged in the criminal case.

3. Since the respondent no. 3 was not allowed to rejoin his service after such discharge, the respondent no. 3 had lodged a complaint which was ultimately referred by the appropriate Government to the learned CGIT, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 05/2011. The terms of the reference were as follows:

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Airlines Corporation and in not re-employing Shri S Basfore after his acquittal from the Court (not finding him guilty of the charge of theft) is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

4. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned Award dated 30.10.2015 had answered the issue in favour of the workman and against the petitioner-Management. The action of the Management in not re-employing the respondent no. 3 was held to be illegal and so far as the back wages are concerned, since there was no material on the aspect of lack of gainful employment, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs was granted along with a direction for reinstatement. It is the validity and legality of the aforesaid Award which is the subject matter of challenge.

5. I have heard Shri KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri KK Parasar, learned CGC for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 as well as Shri S Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-the workman.

6. Shri Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Reference was in the name of the Management of Indian Airlines which was subsequently taken over by the Air India Ltd. He has informed that as on 01.01.2023, the TATA Group has taken over the Management.

7. By referring to the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter called as the Act of 1947), the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the nature of the employment of the respondent no. 3 was casual and therefore, the said respondent no. 3 could have been retrenched. He has also submitted that from the date of his arrest which was in the year 1989, a considerable time has elapsed and therefore, re-engagement may not be possible and these aspects were overlooked by the learned Tribunal. He has also submitted that a casual worker may not be entitled to raise a dispute under the Act of 1947. In support of his submissions, Shri Patgiri, learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws:

i) Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1;

ii) Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, (2007) 1 SCC 408;

(iii) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh, (2005) 2 SCC 470;

(iv) Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Om Prakash Dubey, (2007) 1 SCC 373.

8. The case of Uma Devi (3) (supra) is on the aspect of the principles to be followed for regularization of service. In the case of Indian Drugs (supra), it has been laid down that regularization of service cannot be a mode of appointment and regularization cannot be directed de hors the rules. In the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the aspect of termination of service o