AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner aggrieved by the award dt. 31.12.2011 in Reference No. 18/11 of the Prl. Labour Court, Bangalore, has presented this petition.
According to the learned counsel, petitioner engaged the services of respondents, on temporary basis, to read the installation on USD Kolar Division (meter reader), due to shortage of staff and were not appointed against any permanent vacancy under a regular recruitment, while being paid consolidated sum of Rs. 1,928/- per month. Since respondents were alleged to have been involved in sabotage, causing loss to Corporation on 12.10.2007 at about 8.30 p.m., their services were terminated following which industrial dispute was raised and the State Government made a reference of the same to the Labour Court which was registered as Ref. No. 18/11 and the Labour court after a trial allowed the reference, directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. An examination of the award impugned discloses that petitioner did not place before court relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that workmen had not completed 240 days of continues service in 12 calendar months immediately preceding their termination. So also, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents remained absent unauthorisedly during every year from 2001 to 2007 and therefore, had not worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year was also not established by cogent evidence. Respondents, on the other hand, submitted service certificates Exs. W13 and 14 issued by the petitioner for having served as Meter Readers in Kolar Division since five years, on temporary basis. These two documents were not impeached in the testimony of the workmen. It is in this context that the Labour Court answered issue No. 1 in the order of reference in the negative and against the petitioner and the additional issue in the negative holding that respondents 1 and 2 being temporary employees, the provision of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short ''ID Act'' is applicable. The Labour Court having found that, in the facts and circumstances, there was violation of Sections 25-F and 25-B of the ID Act and therefore, the termination of the services of respondents was set aside by order dated 18.10.2007 with a direction to reinstate the respondents to the temporary post of Meter Reader with 50% of back wages.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and examined the award, the reasons, findings and conclusions are neither perverse nor illegal calling for interference.
Petition is accordingly rejected.