MADHYA BHARAT GRAMIN BANK Vs. PANCHAMLAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An industrial dispute was raised by the respondent which is as under:

(2.) The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) answered the reference against the respondent and held that the respondent was not a regular employee as he was employed on daily wages. The CGIT further held that the respondent could not produce any evidence to show that he had continuously worked for five years in the appellant-Bank. The Tribunal also held that the respondent could not prove that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

(3.) The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur challenging the award of the CGIT. Learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the CGIT committed an error in not considering a vital piece of evidence while concluding that the respondent did not work continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. Learned single Judge held that it was incumbent on the part of the management to produce all the material in their possession to establish and prove that the respondent was appointed on a daily wage basis and did not work continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. On the basis of such findings, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed. The appeal filed by the appellant-Bank was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the appellant-Bank failed to produce relevant records to show that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench, the appellant-Bank has come before this Court.