AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J.
Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of the management. He submits, impugned is award dated 31st March, 2016. Opposite party was engaged for two days in a week, amounting to eight days in a month. In the circumstances, he could not be said to have been in continuous service for any period. He draws attention to earlier award dated 10th January, 2012 on the same order of reference dated 8th October, 2010 to point out that his client’s contention was recorded therein. We extract and reproduce a passage from said award.
“xxx xxx xxx To dispel the stand taken by the workman that he was not paid with my remuneration, M.W. 1 in his examination-in-chief asserted that the workman was engaged in the stop gap arrangement and at para-5 of the affidavit stated specifically that he was engaged as a part time labourer on daily wage basis at Rs.40/- from May, 2006 to March, 2007 and at para-11 asserted that before termination of the engagement with effect from 01.04.2007 not 01.06.2007 as claimed by the workman he had not at all worked without interruption for a period of 240 days xxx xxx xxx”
On query from Court he submits, earlier award was set aside without reservation, on the workman having had challenged it in this Court. On remand, impugned award dated 31st March, 2016 came to be passed. On further query from Court, he is unable to disclose reference to any material in impugned award to substantiate his client’s contention that the workman was engaged temporarily and did not work for continuous period of 240 days in the year preceding the reference.
Mr. Pati, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party workman. He submits, on wrongful termination his client had applied for relief under section 17-B, by making application under section 33-C(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that case, his client obtained relief. The Industrial Dispute was referred by aforesaid order of reference. In the adjudication, the labour Court fell to error by finding resjudicata against his client, in having earlier applied for and obtained relief under section 17-B. Hence, his client successfully challenged the award in this Court. It was set aside with direction for re-adjudication on remand. As such, pursuant to self same order of reference dated 8th October, 2010, impugned award dated 31st March, 2016 came to be passed.
He relies on first sentence in paragraph-16 of impugned award, extracted and reproduced below.
“Therefore, on clinical analysis of the entire materials available on record, it remains undisputed that the workman was engaged to work for the whole of the month during his service from 1991 till his disengaged in the year 2007.”
He submits, the management has not been able to show that there was relevant evidence of his client having had been temporarily engaged to demonstrate that he did not qualify to be protected under section 25-F of the Act. In the circumstances, there should not be interference.
It will appear from above that the management has not been able to demonstrate perversity in impugned award. Submissions made on behalf of the workman, therefore, are to be accepted. We do accept the same.
The writ petition is found to be without merit and it is dismissed.
……………………………….