Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Garrison Engineer Mes vs Central Industrial Tribunal And Anr. on 27 May, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)IILLJ876RAJ, 1992(1)WLN591
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated April 20, 1991 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal on a reference made by the Central Government in the matter of termination of the service of the workman Net Ram with effect from January 30, 1987.
2. The petitioner's case is that workman Net Ram was engaged as a casual daily wage employee on April 4, 1986. He worked upto March 9, 1987, for a period of 116 days. Thereafter he was engaged on April 16th, 1987 and he worked upto May 6, 1987. During this period he worked for only 7 days. Thus in one calender year he worked for 116 days and in another calender year he worked for 7 days. According to the petitioner, termination of the service of workman was brought about on the ground that the same is perverse and is wholly arbitrary and cryptic. The learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal, has neither considered the documentary evidence nor has he applied the provisions of law in a correct perspective and his award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of its record. It is also the case of the petitioner that Section 25F does not apply because the workman had not worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months preceding the date of his termination.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award and has argued that the findings recorded by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The findings are perverse. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has misdirected himself in applying Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has supported the award and has argued that there is no warrant for interference by this Court with the award which contains a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal on the basis of his appreciation of evidence.
4. I have looked into the pleadings and the documents placed on the record of this writ petition and has also perused the record of the Central Industrial Tribunal which has been summoned by this Court.
5. The finding, which has been recorded by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal, is that the workman had not rendered 240 days of service in a span of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination of his service. However he has concluded that because permanent appointment has been made after termination of the service of the workman, there has been a violation of Section 25H of the 1947 Act, In my considered opinion, the second part of the finding recorded by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law. I am not convinced with the submission of Shri Balwada that Section 25H is not attracted in a case where the workman had not completed 240 days of service. Reference in this connection need be made to the decision of the Oriental Bank of Commerce v. The Central Industrial Tribunal 1992(1) WLC. 464 . In that case after making an elaborate analysis of the provisions of Section 25B, 25F, 25G and 25H as well as Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, I have held that requirement that a person must have served for 240 days for claiming benefit of Section 25F cannot be applied in regard to the provisions of Section 25G and 25H.
6. So far as the present case is concerned, the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal has not at all considered the fact that the workman was merely a casual labourer. A casual labourer does not have a right of preference in the matter of appointment when permanent appointment is made. He can claim preference only if appointment of casual nature is made by the employer after termination of his service. If regular recruitment is made in the service, such regular recruitment can only be made in accordance with law and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A casual employee cannot claim precedence/preference in the matter of regular appointment. He has to compete with the other eligible persons for the regular appointment. Thus, the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal was in error in holding that there has been a violation of Section 25H of the 1947 Act.
7. This Writ Petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The award dated April 20, 1991 is declared illegal and it is hereby quashed. Costs made easy.