7.Heard Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, pursuant to the Central Administrative Tribunal directive, a scheme was framed by the Postal Department on 23.12.1993. Under the said scheme, who were engaged as ED personnel by the Department on or before 11.02.1988, subsequent to their disengagement, had been included in such list prepared in each of the District. However, insofar as the employees, who had been engaged subsequent to the cut off date i.e., 11.02.1988, as per the directives given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, those names since have not been included as these contesting respondents had admittedly been engaged in the year 1991 and 1995 respectively i.e., very well after the cut off date i.e., 11.02.1988, their plea to include in the list prepared for the Nagapattinam Postal District / Circle cannot be considered or acceded, accordingly, they have not been included. However, the Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award directed the Department to include the names of these contesting respondents in the said dovetailed list on the footing that, they are entitled to have included in the list since they had completed 240 days of continuous service and the said reasoning given by the Industrial Tribunal is not inconsonance with the import of the scheme framed by the Postal Department. On that ground, assailing the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, these writ petitions have been filed, therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be set aside, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner Department has contended.
