Hh 6.1 HON’BLE SHR! 53R, NAYAK; CJJ. 8: giQM’EaLE $HR! QR. QE$HMQKHQ J. GQRAM: WRH PETIT!QN 910.3317 9F 2003 O‘TIT!QNER$‘ 1.. Satyadae Rai, $lo Kapil Deo Rai, aged about 38 years, Clo Shri KK. Singh, Type I, Q.No.1 P&T colenys Secior 5, BhHai Nagar, Taha‘il arid District Durg (C.G.) !$hwarla! 3/0 Kartikram $ahu, aged abouf 3T yearS, RIO Viliage Jora Taraix Post Mangta, Tahsil and Distraci Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Gariba Ram Sio Firtu Ram (Maithi! —chha’tri), aged about 42 yeab'ss, resident 0f village Damoda‘ Paint Barai, District Burg ($3.) Parmanand. Sahu, 53/9 Bi5e$ar Sahu, aged 45 years, resident of \Jiuage Jora Tarai Post. Mangta, Tahsii and Diwm Rajmandgaon (0.6.) $anjay Kumar Misha, S10 Shri Ram Mishra, aged abou‘t 35 years, resident cf Gandhi Nagar, Bhilai 3, Tahsii arid District Durg (C.G.) Arjun Singh S!o Jagdish, aged aboui 44 years, Resident of Viiiage Ruabandha, Azad Chawk, Past $ecticm 10, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsi! and Districi Burg (€3.63; Bise!ai S/o Kartik Rani, aged about 48 yearS, re$icient of Viiiage Kociia, Posst Pauwara, P.$. Litai, Tahsii and Distt. Durg (CG) $hiv KLimai' $/o Kublai Chandrakar, ageci aboui 38 years, resideni Of Shitia Nagar, Near Amataiab, Duig {c.G.) §J~ pa AT B!LASP£JR: GHHATTE$GARH $9 W Versus 1 . 9) ’Lr Yograj Moukhare S/Q Shri Hagruji Nouk‘nare agea‘ about 39 years, R/o Rajeev Nagar; Post Ramanagar, Suphéaa Bhilai District Durg (05.) The Unien of India, thmugh the Secremi’y, Télecamnmnicatian Commission, New Delhi. Divisional Offmer, Telecommunication/BET, Durg a$i Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Sub DivBicma! Officer (Phones) Burg, District Durg (C.G.) Present: Smt. Renu Kcchar, iearned counsel for the petitioners. $hri Bhishma Kinger, learned ceunsei forrespcndent N01 Shri RM. $Qiapurkari ieamed counsei for respendents 2 and 3 The foliowing order ef the Ceurt was passed by 5R. Nayak, Qt}. The petitieners aine in number and; five others have iiiee Centemnt (if {:eurt Petitien No.26/1 997 before the Central Adminietrative Tribunai, :Jebaipur Beneh, Jebaipur (fer shert ‘the Tribunei'), cempiaining that the writ ieeued by the Tribune! vicie order dated 28-8—1995 was deiiberateiy Vieiated and, therefore, the respcndents shouid‘ be ptinished. The Tribunal by its erder dated 11~2-2003 drepped. the cantempt caee and ctiesharged the notiees issued to the reependents. Being aggrieved by the abcve ercier ef the Tribunal, this writ petitien is titec! under Article 226 0f the Censtitution Qt indie. (@RAL. eaeem (Pagsed on t3“ Apt-ii, 2am) 2. The factss Qf the case !eading ta {Hing ef the above Contempt elf Gaunt Petitign be hated in the fir$t instance, and they, in brief, are as. fella-vet — The petitionere herein and Several ethers filed O,A.No.411/1990 and connected QAe befere the Tribunal cemplaining that theugh they > had been sewing on deity wage beeie for number ef yeare, their servicee were net regularized, It Wee else comeleined that they are werkmen within the meaning 0f that term ae defined in $eetien 2 (s) 9f the industrial Dieputes Aet‘ 1947 (for shert ‘ the Aet‘}, and their eervlcee were terminatect withetrt eomplying with the mandatory provieiene of $eetion 25F at the Aet The Tribunal having epined that the eervices at those deity wagers enneinted befere 22—64988 might net to have been terminated and that even the termination ef the services ef these daily wagers appointed after 22-6-1988 without ecmplying with the mandatery nrovieiens 0f $eetien 25F of the Act is illegal, diepceed ef the 0A5 and issued the fetlewing directions: — “Fer the reasons stated abeve, the petitiens are partly aliewed, and it is directed that in caees where appointmente are made prior to 22.6.1988, such employees Shall be regularized end in cases where appeintmente ere rnecie after 22.6.1988 and terminatien orders have been passed Without payment of retrenchment compeneetion, the erders 0f termination are quashed. There shall be no order as to eoets." 3. The petitioners and five others filed the above contempt petition No26/1997 compieining that in terms of the order of the Tribunal detect 28-dnt 995'pessed in Q.A.No.41 1/90 and the hatch, their services x, t r Qught t0 have been regularized, begause, they were appointed a5 daily wagers before 22-6—1988. The centempt caee was oppesed by the respendents. !n the reply filed on beheif of the C:hief Genera! Manager, Teiecemmunications, MP. Cimle, Bhopal, the first respondent, it was maimed thet after the abeve order of the Tribunal dated 25-84995, the Telecem District Manager wee asked to verify the number ef days 0f work put in. by the 14 applicante in the contempt case, in different calender yeare and the Telecom District Manager in his repert Stated that nene of the 14 epplieants exeept Arjun Singh‘ applicant No.11) had werked prior te 1989‘ ln that view ef the matter, the services of the petitioners are not regularized. The Tribunal accepting the above defence of the first respondent dropped the eontempt proeeedings and discharged the notices; by the impugned order. Henee, this writ petition by the aggrieved daily wagers, 4. We have heard !earned counsel for the parties and perused the material documente appended to the writ petition. There is no contreverey between the pertiee that the order made by the Tribune! in Q.A.No.411/90 end batch, dated 2&84995 has beeome fine! and the respondente are bound by that order. The consequences that flow from the above order are that if the petitioners were appointed as daily wagers on or before 22—64988, by Virtue of the order of the Tribunal, their eervioes are required to be regularized; secondly, even in ease of others who were appointed as daily wagers after 22-6-1988, if their services were terminated without comptying with the mandatory provisions of ' Section 25F of the Act, they are also entitled to he reinstated into service in the same position they held before the termination of their services. 5. m this case, we are nat sailed upcm to decide the case of gesond categosy of ammoyeeS. It is the specific case cf al! the petitioners that they were appointed as daily wagem ptior tc 22n6—1Q88‘ In Suppott cf their claim, in contempt ceee, they have filed Annexme P~2 at pages from 21. to 28, Annexure P-3 at pages frem 29 to 35 and Annexure P-5A. if we ge by the above decuments, it wouid shew that the petitioners were appointed, as daily wagers well before the eut eff date, i.e., 22~6~19&8. Unfortunate-IV, the Tribunal has not censiclered theee documents in the way expected of it. Having perused the impugned order of the Tribunal, we have reason to Say that the Tribunal has swayed away by what is stated in the affidavit ef RS. Dhruve, SD (E) Public Grievances. This Gentlemen Qffieer, es eeuld be seen from para 7 ef the erder, quite curiously states — “eertiticete was net given by me at any point of time. The certificate was given lay the then Telecom District Engineer, nemeiy, 5hri Pu singh, whe has already retired from service“ l hat! aimpiy attested the certificate given by Shri P. $ingh, the then Teiecom District Engineer certifying his signatures. l have net gene thmugh the record at any point ef time”. Should. we say that what is stated by a senior officer like $D (E) Public Grievances refieets high grade irrespensibiiity, it is unfortunate that the Tribunal witheut proeerly aepreciating the irrespensible statement made by Shri RS. Dhruve, SD (E) Public Grievances, accepted his statement as a gospel truth and eemeleteiy ignored the number of documents produced by the petitioners in support of their claim, and dropped the oontempt proceedings. lt is expected of an‘adiudicatory forum'to criticaliy consider ail relevant materials and evaluate their evidentiary value in the decision- \xsk ,5” mgking. We are constrained t0 observe that the Tribunal in thi$ case did mt act in the. way expected 9f it. 6h We think that the ends of juatise would be met by directing the respendents Teiecam Administratmn ta fairly consider the ciaims of the petitieneie demvo in the light ef all relevant materiale and giving fair epportunity t0 them t0 have their 5ay in the matter and else taking inte‘ aeceunt the deeumentery evidence adduced by them. We hepe and trust that the Tetecom Adminietratien would aet fairly and reescnably and Without being influenced by any cf the abservatione made by the Tribunal in the impugned arder or the skin—eeving etatement made by RS. Dhruve, 3D (E) Publie Grievance, in his affidavit fiied in the nentempt eeee. We direct the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Chhattiegarh Circie, Raipur, t0 énirust thg jab of verifying the material particulars of the eervices 0f the petiticners to a responsible officer cf the Department and then to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. The abeve direction shall be eempiieci Within three menthe. .7. The writ petition etencis disposed of in the above terms. Ne casts. . , Lei A ‘ fl ‘ .. Sd/f Sdl' , Chieggg. DWP Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge wefwwg ewe ‘