H D SINGH Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a Tikka mazdoor with the first respondent, the Reserve Bank of India. A Tikka mazdoor is a person who helps the Examiners of Coins/notes. He was so selected on daily wages of Rs. 3 as per appointment letter dated 30-4-1974. As per the appointment order, he used to report to the bank regularly at 9-30 A.M. to ascertain whether he could get work every day. On days when no work was given to him, he had to wait till noon to be told by the authorities concerned that no work was available on such days. Thus, he was given work only for four days in 1974, one hundred and fifty- four days in 1975 and one hundred and five days in 1976. At the time he was selected for employment, he was not a matriculate. He passed the matriculation examination in 1975. At the time he was selected he was not told that his name would be struck off the list of Tikka Mazdoors if he passed the matriculation examination. On 23-7-1976, he received a letter from the bank asking him to state within a week (latest by 29-7-1976) as to what his educational qualification was. He was also informed that his name would be struck off since he had concealed his educational qualification and that his services would be terminated without any notice and compensation from the bank. It appears that Tikka Mazdoors are placed in List II maintained by the bank. A confidential circular seems to have been issued by the bank on 27-6-1976 to the effect that matriculates would not be retained in this list. The appellant sent a reply stating that he was not a matriculate in 1974 when he was selected and that he passed the examination only in 1975. He enclosed the certificate and the mark-sheet to prove that he passed the examination only subsequent to his selection as Tikka Mazdoor.

(2.) The appellant was not given any work after July 1976. There is no written order terminating his services. The representative of the first respondent admitted, while he was cross-examined, that no formal order intimating the appellant that his name was struck off the list was issued. His father was also an employee of the bank. He knew that the appellant's name had been removed permanently from the list of Tikka Mazdoors. Thereupon, both his father and the appellant made representations to the bank against the action taken. No reply was given to these representations. When his attempt to get his grievances redressed by correspondence failed, he moved for conciliation. The Assistant Labour Commissioner appeared to be impressed with the genuineness of his case, but his persuasion did not move the bank in his favour. Thereupon, the Central Government made a reference by Notification dated 19-9-1979, for adjudication of the following dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi:-

(3.) The appellant in his claim statement pleaded as follows:-