GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA Vs. NIMO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above-captioned petitions are directed against Award of 25th June, 2014 vide which the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") has drawn adverse inference against Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") for not producing the record and has held that the termination of service of Nimo Devi (hereinafter referred to as "Workman") is illegal and so, direction to reinstate workman has been passed. However, back-wages have been declined as workman had not pleaded and proved in evidence that she had remained unemployed since the date of termination of her service upto the date of Award. In the above-captioned first petition, the employerBank seeks setting aside of the Award whereas in the above-captioned second petition, workmen seeks full back-wages.

(2.) Since the Award impugned in these petition is same, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(3.) The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for the Bank is on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in putting the burden on the Bank to prove that the Workman had worked continuously for 240 days in a year. It is submitted that the burden is on the workman to prove it. In this regard, reliance is placed upon decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pankaj Dixit & Ors. v. M/s. K.B.S.H. Export House & Anr., 2018 248 DLT 357. It is also submitted that workman had not worked for 240 days and infact she had worked for 221 days and that workman's attendance in two branches of the Bank cannot be clubbed together and to submit so, reliance is placed upon decision in Haryana State Cooperative Supply Marketing Federation Limited v. Sanjay, 2009 14 SCC 43. Thus, it is submitted that the workman is not entitled to reinstatement and her petition deserves to be dismissed.