Allahabad High Court
Daya Ram Keshwani And Another vs The Presiding Officer Central ... on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Reserved
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163881
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8335 of 2022
Petitioner :- Daya Ram Keshwani And Another
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Mushfiq Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Kumar Chand
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri Syed Mushfiq Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and leaned standing counsel for the State respondents.
Present petition has been filed assailing the award dated 26.7.2021 published on 20.9.2021 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur in ID case no. 03/2004 by which partial claim of the petitioners was granted.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 was engaged as casual labour in the catering unit of Central Railway at Jhansi. The petitioner along with 13 other casual labours were discharging multifarious duties of cleaner/ bearers and other alied works. These works had been increased due to supply of food packages etc, in the Shatabdi Express. The petitioner no.1 along with others continuously worked for more than six years and acquired temporary status. The workman on acquiring temporary status was appointed monthly rated casual labour (MRCL) w.e.f. 29.10.1989. The petitioner no.1 continued to work for about five years as MRCL when abruptly on 30.9.1994 his services were terminated with a notice under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman initially challenged his termination at Central Administrative Tribunal but did not find response due to lack of jurisdiction. The industrial dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and on failure of conciliation, the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub section (1) and sub section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the dispute for adjudication before the Tribunal. Petitioner no.1 filed claim petition before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur being ID case no. 03/2004 in which arguments of the parties were heard and judgment was reserved. During the pendency of the claim before the labour court petitioner no.1 died on 9.7.2021. By the impugned award dated 26.7.2021 published on 20.9.2021 the claim of the petitioner was partly allowed by giving compensation of Rs. 5 lacks treating the petitioner no.1 as casual labour. Hence the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 was engaged on 19.5.1989 and since then he along with 20 other casual labours worked continuously. Thereafter they were granted temporary status under the rules with effect from 29.8.1990. On 28.9.1994 the respondents decided to terminate the service of the petitioner along with 20 other workmen by giving notice under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter termination notice was issued to the petitioner along with 20 others on 30.9.1994 along with one month salary. He further submits that Mr. Siraj Khan and Mr. Majid Khan similarly situated workmen made a reference which was allowed terming the termination order to be illegal and they were reinstated in service with full back wages and other service benefits. He further submits that once the termination order dated 28.9.1994 has been treated as illegal in the case of other similarly situated co-workmen, the petitioner is also entitled to get the same benefits, taking a different view in the impugned award by awarding compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is discriminatory. He further submits that the petitioner no.2 has assailed the award on the ground that once the retrenchment of similarly situated workmen was treated to be illegal the similar award should have been passed in the case of the petitioner no.1. Hence he prays to allow the petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the award and submits that the petitioner no.1 was not a regular employee, therefore there was no question to claim reinstatement and the compensation has rightly been allowed. He prays for dismissal of the petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records it is not in dispute that the petitioner along with 20 other workmen were discharging their duties regularly and by order dated 29.10.1989 their services were treated as monthly rated casual labour. Thereafter on 28.9.1994 the respondents decided to terminate the service of the petitioner no.1 along with 20 other workmen by giving notice under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and notice to the petitioner was served on 30.9.1994. Reference No. L-41012/244/2000/IR (B-I) dated 19.3.2001 was made by Mr. Siraj Khan, the co-workman and Reference No. L-41012/244/2000/IR (B-I) dated 19.3.2001 was made by Majid Khan, co-workman in which awards were passed on 10.7.2002 holding the retrenchment order dated 28.9.1994 and notice dated 30.9.1994 to be illegal as well as the workmen are entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and other service benefits against which the respondents filed writ petition No. 6631 of 2002 which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 23.7.2014. Thereafter the respondents approached the Supreme Court by filing special leave petition No. 43845 of 2017 which was decided in favour of the workmen on 17.1.2020 and the review petition filed therein was also dismissed on 23.7.2020. Thereafter the workmen have been reinstated with all back wages and other service benefits.
Once on the similar set of facts the co-workmen have been reinstated with all back wages with all consequential benefits the petitioner no.1 cannot be single out. In view of the above facts the services of the petitioner no.1 cannot be terminated. Since the petitioner no.1 is now no more and his services have wrongly been terminated he is entitled for all service benefits from the date of his termination. The impugned award dated 26.7.2021 published on 20.9.2021 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur in ID case no. 03/2004 is modified to the extent indicated above.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
samz
