Management of Bihar Institute of Technology vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Shri Jwala Prasad Singh

Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

This writ application has been filed against the Award passed in Reference Case No. 06 of 1995 vide order dated 26.07.2005 by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad by which order he found that since the service of the workman, Jwala Prasad Singh has been terminated without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, hence, his termination is bad and not proper and cannot be justified and hence, the workman is entitled to be reinstated within three months from the date of pronouncement of this Award.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the institute of the PetitionerManagement i.e. the Management of Bihar Institute of Technology Sindri, Dhanbad is an industry u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, the award against him is bad in law and fit to be quashed. He has further argued that since the matter with regard to the institution lastly decided in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, has been referred to larger Bench by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Jai Bir Singh, and the matter is pending since 2005 and since the matter is still pending as to whether institution of the Petitioner will come under the provisions of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further submitted that since workman Shri Jwala Prasad Singh was a temporary casual worker and as such, he was terminated without any enquiry since he was found guilty in the charge of misbehavior in the institution, within the provision of law and the award against management is bad in law and fit to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that because the case has been referred to larger Bench the said judgment which was the constitutional Bench judgment cannot be said to be not applicable till the larger Bench held otherwise authority and decide the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, Firstly, Petitioner is an industry under the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, Secondly since, the Petitioner is a classIII employees of the B.I.T. Sindari. He is not a teacher as such the concerned workman is a "workman" as per definition given in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is admitted case of the Petitioner and also the labour Court in its Award in page9 admitted that the Petitioner was working in the institution since 03.09.1986 till 15.01.1994 and worked for more than 240 days and as such, he cannot be terminated without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Moreover, if he was terminated from the service for any misconduct there was no enquiry and the labour Court has given a finding that the termination of the services of the concerned workman is void and abinitio for noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Moreover, it is apparent from and after discussing the award that the finding is based on evidences and from the finding of fact it cannot be disturbed by this Court.

In this context, learned Counsel for the Respondent workman refers to and relies upon the judgments in the case reported in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, and subsequently, followed in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers'' Union and Another, .

After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that admittedly Respondent No. 2 namely, Jwala Prasad Singh had worked for more than 240 days from 03.09.1986 to 15.01.1994 and therefore, he cannot be terminated from his service without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act or without any proper enquiry to hold him guilty for any misconduct. In that view of the matter, the award will sustain and no interference is required by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Secondly as per the interference of the larger constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, , the law laid down in this regard will prevail, till it is set aside by another judgment by the larger Bench. Hence, I find no interference in the impugned Award and find no merit in this writ application and as such, this writ application is dismissed with no order as to cost.

The Petitioner is directed to abide by the Award.