Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Section 25N in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Transport Accounts Association ... vs Orissa State Road Transport ... on 8 September, 1989
5. Now coming to the first question raised by the petitioners with regard to non-compliance of section 25N of the I. D. Act, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioners come within the definition of 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of the I. D. Act. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for petitioners on the decision reported in 1990 Lab. I. C. 1378 : State Transport Accounts Association v. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation and others. In the said decision, this Court observed that drivers do either technical, skilled or operational work, the Station Masters, Assistant Station Masters and Traffic Inspectors do supervisory work and the rest, such as, the Audit Clerks, Lower Division Clerks, etc. do clerical work, and as such they are workmen. I have carefully gone through the entire judgment and it appears that the question as to whether the Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters do supervisory work and are workmen or not was not in dispute. May be, at that point of time, the Station Masters/Traffic Inspectors were drawing less emoluments than the statutory amount as prescribed under the I. D. Act and therefore, the said question was not disputed. It appears that undisputedly the petitioners were drawing more than the statutory amount at the time of their termination. In paragraph 4 of the counter filed on behalf of the Corporation it is stated that the petitioner as Station Master/ Traffic inspector was getting a salary of 3169/- per month with
starting pay of Rs. 1410/- with D. A. and A. D. A.. The definition of 'workman' in the I. D. Act runs as follows :
Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of Jorehaut ... vs Management Of Jorehaut Tea Co. Ltd. on 1 May, 1980
6. So far as the second question is concerned, learned, counsel for petitioners submitted that in the cadre of Station Masters / Traffic Inspectors persons junior to the petitioners have been retained and therefore, the principle of last come first go has not been followed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Corporation submitted that the entire length of service of an employee in the Corporation has been taken into consideration
and accordingly the principle of last come first go has been followed. Persons who have been placed junior to the petitioners in the gradation list of Station Master/Traffic Inspectors must have put in more years of service in the Corporation than that of the petitioners as there used to be direct recruitment to the post of Station Master/Traffic Inspector and therefore, there is no illegality in retaining those who have put in more years of service in the Corporation than the petitioners even though they may be juniors to the petitioners as Station Masters/Traffic Inspectors, The learned counsel for the Corporation has relied on the decision reported in A. I. R. 1980 Supreme Court 1454 ; Workmen of Sudder Workshop of Jorehaut Tea Co. Ltd. v. Management of Jorehaut Tea Co. Ltd., wherein the Apes Court has -held that the principle of last come first go is that the employer shall retrrench the workman who came last. Though it is not an inflexible rule and extraordinary situations may justify variations, affirmatively, some valid and justifiable grounds must be proved by the Management to be exonerated from the last come first go principle. The contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation that those who arc junior to the petitioners have been retained in service because of their length of service in the Corporation is not in dispute. The only question is whether the last come first go principle should be cadrewise or should be on the basis of total length of service in the Corporation. If the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is accepted, that the last go principle should be followed cadrewise, then employees who have put in more years of service in the Corporation and have worked in different capacities have to be thrown out of service and persons who have put in less years of service shall have to be retained. I, therefore, do not find, any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the decision of the Corporation in following the principle of last come first go by taking into account the total length of service put in by an employee in the Corporation. On this ground also I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners,
Section 34 in Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
1