SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. CORPORATION BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-workman challenges the correctness of the award dated 8th March, 2006 of the Labour Court whereby the reference made to it by the appropriate Government at his instance in respect of his grievance that his services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the respondent-bank has been answered against him and it has been held that he had failed to establish that his services had been terminated illegally.

(2.) THE relevant facts and which are not in dispute also are that the petitioner undisputedly was employed by the respondent-bank as a daily wager on 28th March, 1998 and he was paid Rs. 60 per day and as per the case of the petitioner his services were brought to an end with effect from 27th March, 1999. Since he felt that his services had been terminated illegally he raised an industrial dispute by approaching the Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act for referring his dispute to the industrial adjudication. THE conciliation officer conduced conciliation proceedings between the petitioner-workman and the respondent-management but no settlement could be arrived at. As per the failure report of the conciliation officer the respondent-management had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act which it was required to comply with since the petitioner-workman had worked with the respondent-bank for more than 240 days before the termination of his services. THE appropriate Government then referred the dispute about the legality of the termination of the services of the petitioner to the Labour Court in the following terms:- "Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank in terminating the services of Shri Sandeep Kumar w.e.f. 27.3.1999 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to"?

(3.) THE learned Labour Court after examining the evidence adduced from both the sides gave its award dated 8th March, 2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he had worked with the respondent-bank for a period of 240 days preceding the date of termination of his services and, therefore, it held that no fault could be found with the respondent-bank taking a decision for not continuing his daily wage appointment any further.