Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 7334 of 2001 (Old No.40415 of 1992) Oil and Natural Gas Commission through Sri S.K. Chawla, General Manager, Tel Bhawan. Dehradun. ……………. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Tribunal, Pandunagar, Kanpur and others. ………………… Respondents ………………. Sri L.P.Naithani, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner Sri Gopal Narian, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.3. Date: July 31, 2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari quashing the award passed by respondent No.1 on 01.09.1992 in Industrial Dispute No. 98 of 1989. 2. On a dispute raised by the ONGC Karmachari Union, Dehradun on behalf of workman-Sri Rajan Kumar, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its notification No.L-30012/1/89-IR(Misc) dated 28th April, 1989 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kanpur for adjudication:- whether the demand of the ONGC Karmachari Union Dehradun on the management of ONGC Dehradun for reinstatement of Sri Rajan Kumar S/o Sri Mohan Singh Ex Labourer w.e.f July 1985 is justified? If so, what relief is the workman entitled? 3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that he was employed as a labourer in September 1982 and he had worked in the Tech. Business Group Department, ONGC Dehradun as a sweeper cum cleaner upto 11.07.1985 continuously. His services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the persons junior to petitioner are still working. The work on which he had been working is of perennial nature. 4. The management of ONGC Dehradun contested the case and pleaded before the Tribunal that the petitioner was awarded a job contract in the month of August 1984. The said job contract continued from time to time upto April 1985. It was never renewed after April 1985. Hence, it can not be said that provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were violated. 5. Both the parties have led their evidence, oral as well as documentary, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record held that the termination of the petitioner from service w.e.f. 12.07.1985 was illegal and unjustified and reinstated the petitioner in service with full back wages w.e.f. 01.09.1988. The petitioner was further held entitled to get only 25 percent of the back wages prior to the period 01.09.1988. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ONGC has come up with this petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned award. It is not disputed between the parties that the workman had worked in Tech. Business Group Department of ONGC, Dehradun. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence held that the petitioner had worked as a sweeper cum cleaner in the capacity of contingent employee from September 1982 to 11th July 1985 and his services were illegally terminated violating the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, keeping in view the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is liable to be allowed partly. 7. The writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is reinstated in service but he will not get any back wages. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh