HONGKONG & SHANGHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANJU Saxena : the protagonist, was employed by the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, the antagonist, as a Secretary, on a temporary basis on March 10, 1986 with effect from February 14, 1986 and vide letter of appointment dated April 08, 1986 she was appointed as a Confidential Secretary on probation with effect from April 01, 1986, and as per the bank she was a part of the management staff. On December 27, 1986 a contract of employment was executed laying bare the duties, responsibilities and functions which were required to be performed and discharged by Manju Saxena. W ith effect from October 01, 2004, new terms and conditions of service were introduced by the bank which were offered to Manju Saxena vide letter dated September 01, 2004, which were accepted by Manju Saxena vide her letter dated October 01, 2004 and thus she became a management staff in Staff Officers Bank -2. In April, 2005 the bank was of the opinion that the job entrusted to Manju Saxena had become redundant and hence in April, 2005 itself an offer was made to Manju Saxena for three alternate jobs; all being in the management staff category. Manju Saxena considered the offer made and simultaneously discussed with the bank a severance package. Consensus eluded. Her services were terminated on October 01, 2005, and the order dated October 01, 2005 records the reasons for the termination : non -acceptance by Manju Saxena to any of the three alternative jobs offered to her or the severance package offered by the bank. Manju Saxena raised an industrial dispute, claiming to be a workman. As per her, the termination of her services were in violation of the applicable provisions of the ID Act, 1947.

(2.) THE appropriate government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal as under: -

(3.) MANJU Saxena filed a statement of claim before the Industrial Tribunal, to which the bank filed a response. The principal bone of contention between Manju Saxena and the bank which emerged from their respective pleadings was to the status of Manju Saxena. W hereas as per her she was a workman. As per the bank she held a managerial position. It is apparent that a finding of fact concerning the nature of duties assigned to and performed by Manju Saxena were determinative of the said dispute and for which evidence had to be led. Before the stage reached for the bank to file the documents in support of its defence, Manju Saxena filed an application praying for an interim award which claim of hers i.e. for being paid, as an interim measure, the sum demanded by her, was decided by the Industrial Tribunal vide an interim award dated June 30, 2006. It was directed that the bank shall pay to Manju Saxena Rs. 30,000/ - per month till disposal of the reference made; the payment to be made from the month of June, 2006.