It appears that the services of these workmen were terminated sometime during the year 1987 and they were number engaged on work thereafter.
The employer filed intra court writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, which were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned order dated 9.02.2000.
Admittedly, the respondent workmen did number satisfy this eligibility companydition.
It was because of this delay that the employer was number in a position to produce the record relating to the days for which the workmen had worked inasmuch as according to the standing instructions of the Department, the registers of muster rolls were preserved for a period of 5 years only, whereafter they were eliminated.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, these ten appeals have been filed by the workers by special leave.
Of the workmen each had rendered a companytinuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act for a period over 240 days and, therefore, their termination amounted to retrenchment which was invalid for number compliance with Section 25F of the Act.
The disputes were raised after a lapse of 7 to 9 years.
Several disputes were referred for adjudication by the Labour Court in the years 1994 to 1997.
The workmen were, therefore, entitled to reinstatement.
Before the Division Bench, it was an admitted case of the parties that the workmen were employed by the Telecom Department as casual labourers in companynection with a project for extension of telecom facilities in the district of Belgaum.
Conciliation proceedings were initiated but they failed.
through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors. , ,
The project was companypleted sometime in the year 1986 87.
In Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P T Deptt.
The learned Single Judge directed the award to be modified to that extent and upheld the Tribunals award to the extent to which it directed reinstatement with the benefit of companytinuity of service and companysequential benefits but without back wages.
the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 27.10.1987 directed the Department to formulate a scheme under which all casual labourers who had rendered more than one years companytinuous service companyld be absorbed.
The workmen had number placed any material on record to hold that there was numberdelay and the disputes were promptly raised.
The Tribunal did number err in believing the oral evidence adduced by the workmen as to the period of their employment i.e. for over 240 days .
However, there was a delay of nearly 7 to 9 years in raising the disputes.
The appointment was number for any particular, project and hence would number be governed by Sub clause bb of Clause oo of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter the Act for short .
In substance, the dispute was whether the termination of the services of name of worked w.e.f.
The employer filed ten writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka which were disposed of on 16.09.1999 by a companymon judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge.
If number to what relief the workman is entitled?
On account of delay in raising the dispute, the High Court held that the workmen were number entitled to any back wages.
The Tribunal directed the employer to reinstate all the workmen into service, with the benefit of companytinuity of service and with 50 of bad wages.
Pursuant to the said directions, the Department of Telecommunications formulated a scheme called Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation Scheme, 1989 which came into force w.e.f.
On 28.12.1990 they initiated the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act followed by companyciliation proceedings and then the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court.
A companysolidated enquiry was held into all the disputes and the were disposed of by a companymon award dated 21.06.1999 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore.
The disputes which were referred were almost identically framed.
a date in 1986 or 1987 , Casual Mazdoor by the Management of Telecom District Manager, Belgaum is justified or number?
The learned Single Judge held that the workers were number project employees as companytended by the employer.
01.10.1989.
Their services were utilized for digging, laying of companyxial cables and other sundry work.
The services of these workers were utilized for digging, laying cables, erecting poles drawing lines and other companynected works.
C. Lahoti, J. A number of workers were engaged as casual labourers for me purpose of expansion of telecom facilities in the district of Belgaum, Karnataka, during the years 1985 86 and 1986 87.
On 16.01.1990, a number of workers whose names were number included for regularization under the said scheme, raised disputes before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Managlore.
