IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3094 of 1997 THE MANAGEMENT OF FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA...PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE LABOUR SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY THE STATE JOINT SECRETARY, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, EXECUTIVE STAFF UNIPN, FIRDAUS BUILDING, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA ……… RESPONDENTS. ……………… 6 17.11.08. The management of Food Corporation of India appeared before this Court challenging the award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, in Reference No. 29 of 1992. The award dated 23.10.1996/5.12.1996 is Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The background to the award was reference made by the Central Government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 which reads as under THE SCHEDULE “ Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India in terminating four casual workmen S/Shri Ram Kripal Singh, Saryug Choudhary, Satish Kumar and Anil Kumar without complying with the provision of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and denying to take back in employment from the date of their retrenchment with full back wages and regularisation in the time scale of Food Corporation of India was right and justified? If not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled ?” A dispute was raised by Trade union when four so called employees of the petitioner came to be retrenched in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as the act. 2 The workmen in question are one Ram Kripal Singh and Saryug Choudhary retrenched on 31. 8. 1987 and two others Satish Kumar and Anil Kumar retrenched on 31. 10.1982. The reference came to be made only in the year 1992 after Trade Union in question took up their case. The delay in raising Industrial dispute is not vital to the present case, the matter is going to be decided on the merit of the award rendered by the Tribunal on a very limited legal question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that award which has been rendered by the Industrial Tribunal is in gross violation of settled principle of law and statute in this regard. His contention is that Tribunal ought to have given categorically findings that workmen in question had rendered one year of continuous service amounting to 240 days prior to date of retrenchment of the workmen concerned . Since there is no finding in this regard by the Tribunal based on evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that retrenchment of the workmen was illegal for having violated the provision of Section 25 (F) can not be sustained. If the finding with regard to illegal retrenchment is interfered by this Court then second part of the direction that workmen are entitled for regularization too will have to go. The court has been taken through the award which is Annexure 4. As per the respondents, three workmen had been engaged as per the case sometime in the year 1978. One Saryug Choudhary was engaged in the year 1979. They worked continuously as daily wager under the petitioner till they came to be retrenched illegally without any notice or compensation. Though evidence has been led by the parties in 3 this regard, but on close scrutiny of the decision this Court has difficulty in accepting the finding rendered by the Tribunal that all four workmen had put in 240 days in one year prior to the date of their retrenchment. The evidence has been discussed in paragraph 15. A perusal of paragraph 15 would show that there is no categorically finding rendered by the Tribunal in relation to all four workmen that prior to the date of retrenchment, they had put in one year continuous service of at least 240 working days to make out the case illegal retrenchment. It is a mandatory requirement and the onus of proof that workmen had worked 240 days are on the workmen and not on the employer. In this regard Court takes notice on decisions rendered in case of Essen Deikni Vrs. Rajiv Kumar, (2002) 8 SCC 400 as well as Mohan Lal Vrs. The Management of M/S Bharat Electronics Ltd.A.I.R.1981 SC 1253. A plain reading of both decision rendered by Apex Court compels the Court to hold that the Tribunal has committed error of law by not rendering clear finding on this vital aspect, a must for breach of Section 25 (F) of the Act. In absence of a categorical finding by the Tribunal, order can not be sustained. Submission has been made by the Senior Counsel on behalf of the workmen that there is enough material on the record to come to a conclusion that these workmen have been illegally retrenched by the petitioner without following the provision of 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act. On a pointed question put by the Court as to where the categorically finding with regard to all four workmen has been rendered that they had completed one year of continuous service 4 of at least 240 working days to their credit, he relies only on paragraph 15 of the decision to meet the observation of the court. This Court has difficulty in accepting the submission because the finding in paragraph 15 is no finding as it is not based on evidence which are cogent and reliable. It also does hold that the 240 days relate to the period before the retrenchment dates. Court has no option but to interfere with the award in question Annexure-4 stands quashed and the writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. m.p. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)