Employers in relation to Management of All India Radio, Bhagalpur, P.O., P.S v. Their Workmen Sri Ashok Kumar Jha

: Mr. Siddhartha Berlia, Advocate : Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate ….. By the Court:-

2. Heard the parties. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the award dated

26.08.2014 (the copy of which has been kept at annexure-8) in Reference Case No. 47 of 2008 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned tribunal answered the Reference in the affirmative and held that the action of the management of Prasar Bharti Corporation of India, Akashwani, Bhagalpur in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Jha without complying Section 2 W.P. (L) No.2294 of 2015 23(F) of the I.D. Act and not regularizing him in service to the post of Announcer-cum-Comparer is not legal and justified and directed the management to implement the order of CAT, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 112 of 2001 within one month from the date of publication of award in the Gazette and to regularize him as per the dictum of CAT, Patna, and the Tribunal, in any Prasar Bharti Kendra.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the appropriate Government being the Central Government being the Ministry of Labour has referred the following dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947:- “Whether the action of the management of Prasar Bharti Corporation of India, Akashwani, Bhagalpur in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Jha without complying Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act and not regularizing him in service to the post of Announcer-cum-Comparer is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” Though in the impugned award, the relevant section has been mentioned as Section 23(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, in place of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

4. The respondent-workman in his written statement pleaded that All India Radio, Bhagalpur Station announced vacancy for sanctioned posts of Production Asstt-cum-Announcer-cum- Comparer-Drama and Song Artists Group “C” employees in the year 1978. The workman applied for the post and successfully competed the test and was engaged vide letter dated 27.12.1979 3 W.P. (L) No.2294 of 2015 performed duties Announcer-cum- Compere-Production Asstt.-cum-Drama Artist from 23.07.1980 to

15.03.2007 for 27 years at Bhagalpur Station. The workman worked for 72 days in every calendar year till the year 2000. It was pleaded that by virtue of Section 11 and 12 of Act No. 25 of 1990 and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the certified standing orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the services of the workman became permanent in Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India at Bhagalpur Station as Announcer-cum-Compere-cum-Production Asstt.-cum- Drama Artist in Akashvani at Bhagalpur Station on and from

15.11.1997/23.11.1997. The workman was elected as the President of Prasar Bharati Karamchari Sangh under the banner of I.N.T.U.C. District Council, Bhagalpur in 2002. The workman raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna by filing petition on 05.09.2006 for getting permanent status in the service of Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India. On 15.03.2007, the Station Engineer, Akashvani Bhagalpur Station terminated the Service of the workman verbally without assigning any reason and without complying Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was contended by the workman that after coming into force of Section 11(6) of Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act No. 25 of 1990, the Station Director, Akashvani Bhagalpur station had no authority and power to terminate the service of the workman without misconduct and without proper departmental 4 W.P. (L) No.2294 of 2015 enquiry. Hence, the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service of the Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation at Bhagalpur Station with effect from 15.03.2007.

5. In its written statement, the writ petitioner-management pleaded that the respondent-workman worked in the establishment of All India Radio, Bhagalpur as Casual Announcer/Compere for maximum 06 days in a month and 72 days in a year. His employment during the period was not continuous but of intermittent in nature. The employment of the respondent- workman was completely need based. The management further pleaded that Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is applicable to such workman employed in any industry for continuous service of not less than one year under the employer but as the respondent-workman had not put in continuous service of one year during this period, hence the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not attracted in respect of the respondent-workman. The management also pleaded that the workman concerned Shri Ashok Kumar Jha never worked as Casual Production Assistant in All India Radio, Bhagalpur, therefore his case is not covered under the scheme of regularization in respect of Casual Artist like Production Assistant as the respondent-workman used as Casual Announcer and not Production Assistant. The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) has not been declared as an Industry. Hence, the proper forum for deciding the case of Employees of All India Radio and Doordarshan is Central Administrative Tribunal. 5 W.P. (L) No.2294 of 2015 The management further pleaded that there is no post in All India Radio like Production Asstt.-cum-Announcer-cum-Compere- Drama and Song Artists but there is separate posts of Announcer- cum-Compere and Production Assistant and the Artists for Song and Drama. Appointment on permanent cadre is made through Subordinate Service Commission and only the engagement of Casual Announcer-cum-Compere and Casual Production Assistant are made through A.I.R. Stations with a view to manage the Casual nature of vacancy.

6. In support of their case, the workman himself examined as W.W.1 by filing his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit and proved the documents which has been marked Ext. W/1 to W/5. Management also examined one witness who also filed his examination in chief by way of affidavit and proved the document which was marked Ext. M/1 to M/7. .

7. The learned tribunal erroneously referred Section 25(F) as Section 23(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the award. The tribunal did not consider whether the workman was continuous service or not for less than one year under the management; which is a sine qua non for applying the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and has failed to answer the dispute referred to it, rather straightway from the reference made to it by observing that CAT, Patna Bench, Patna has passed order to regularize the service of the workman to the post of Announcer-cum-Compere which has got nothing to do 6 W.P. (L) No.2294 of 2015 with the reference made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned tribunal committed illegality by passing the award under wrong notion that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal directed the respondent to regularize the workman which is factually incorrect as the judgment in that case was only to consider the claim of the workman which was considered and consequently rejected. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned tribunal failed to apply its mind by holding that the services of the petitioner was terminated without complying a non-existing provision of Section 23(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It is then submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that the said Section be read as Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, still the learned tribunal failed to consider, as to how, the workman who admittedly was not in continuous service for not less than one year under the writ petitioner-management; the management be expected to comply Section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute Act and Central Government Industrial Tribunal certainly travelled beyond the terms of the reference directing regularization of the workman after reinstatement. Hence, it is submitted that the award dated

26.08.2014 (the copy of which has been kept at annexure-8) in Reference Case No. 47 of 2008 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad be quashed and set aside. 7 W.P. (L) No.2294 of 2015

9. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, hence it is submitted this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.

10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad has committed a grave illegality and perversity by travelling beyond the scope of the reference and by not considering the contention of the management; as the workman having admittedly not been in continuous service for not less than one year under the management ending with his date of his termination on 15.03.2007, how the management was expected to comply the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has also committed a perversity by observing that the CAT, Patna Bench, Patna in OA No. 112 of 2001 directed Prasar Bharati to regularize the service of the workman to the post of Announcer-cum- Compere though there was no such material in the record and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was expected to answer the reference on the basis of the materials available in the record.

11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award dated 26.08.2014 in Reference Case No. 47 of 2008, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government 8 W.P. (L) No.2294 of 2015 Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad is not sustainable in law. Accordingly the same is set aside.

12. The matter is remanded back to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad to pass a fresh award in accordance with law after considering the materials available in

14. the record and the contention raised by the rival parties. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of the Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal concerned. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th February, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)