NARENDER KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 09.03.2004 passed by the CGIT cum Labour Court-II. The Ministry of Labour made the following reference for its adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal:

(2.) The Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the management by holding the direction of the management of the Punjab National Bank, respondent herein, in terminating the service of the petitioner, Sub- staff, posted at Extension Counter, P.N.B., KDB Public School, Ghaziabad w.e.f. 12.09.1992, as legal and justified.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved with the said findings, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The conspectus of brief facts as stated by the petitioner inter alia are that he was employed by the management of the bank as Sub-staff on 08.11.1989 in its Extension Counter, P.N.B., KDB Public School, Ghaziabad, where he worked for 616 days during the period w.e.f. 08.11.1989 to 12.09.1992. He also specifically stated that he had worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months during the period as per the table given by him in the Statement of Claim. The petitioner also stated that on 12.09.1992, the management of the bank had abruptly terminated his service without assigning any reason and without complying with the provisions of bipartite settlement governing service conditions of the bank employees and in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and principles of natural justice. In para 4(ii) of the Statement of Claim, the petitioner gave monthwise break-up from November 1989 till September 1992 of his employment on the post of Sub-staff. The chart for this period shows that the petitioner had worked for a total period of 616 days and in the year 1992 i.e. from January to September, the petitioner is shown to have worked for 178 days. In Para 4(iii), the petitioner has specifically stated that he has worked for more than 240 days in consecutive 12 months period prior to his removal and has worked for 616 days in all at the Extension Counter of the respondent bank. The petitioner has also stated that he was being paid a sum of Rs.25/- per day from different expenditure heads of the said Extension Counter of the bank and the said payment, as per the petitioner, was quite less as prescribed under the bipartite settlement and awards between the bank and its employees. The petitioner, thus, termed his termination w.e.f. 12.9.1992 as illegal, unfair and mala fide, besides the same being in violation of the provisions of I.D. Act, bipartite settlement and principles of natural justice. The respondent, on the other hand, disputed the said position as stated by the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner was never employed by the bank, therefore, no question of his termination could arise.