SYNDICATE BANK Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 17th March, 2004 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court -II ( in short " the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the respondent, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages.

(2.) Briefly facts are that the Manager of the petitioner bank engaged respondent to fetch water as a "water-boy" since the branch was facing a water scarcity. He was engaged for a limited purpose of brining water and he was not connected with normal business/routine functioning of the branch. He was being paid Rs.30/- to Rs.35 per day. His engagement was temporary in the nature. He was being paid daily coolie charges out of the contingency expenditure account of the petitioner, denoting the expenditure "as misc. and sundry" as distinct from from "salaries and allowances". The engagement of the respondent was not against any post available or created in that branch. The respondent was not issued any appointment letter/order. A regular appointment in the category of workman whether part time or whole time, temporary or permanent could be made in the petitioner bank only as per the recruitment rules and guidelines since the petitioner bank is a nationalized bank and the vacancies can be filled either through employment exchange or by the recruitment procedure of the bank. The zonal management was not competent to appoint anybody without following rules and regulations. Therefore, the respondent was only engaged as a "water-boy" for fetching water for the branch and not as an employee. The services of the respondent were dispensed with when they were not required, in November, 1994. The respondent, however, raised an industrial dispute alleging that his services were wrongfully terminated and following dispute was referred for adjudication to the appropriate Government:

(3.) The respondent in his statement of claim alleged that he was appointed as water-boy/peon with effect from 11.10.1991. His conduct and work was satisfactory and he had worked continuously up to 15th November, 1994 and on 16th November, 1994 he was verbally told that his services were not required and were terminated. No charge sheet was issued to him, no inquiry had taken place and no compensation as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was paid. The action of the management was illegal and malafide.