VRITRA KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Central Bank of India (respondent herein) on June 1, 1989. While working as Peon, he was promoted to the post of Clerk in the Bank on January 15, 1990 and was place.d on probation for six months. While he was on probation, he absented from duty. However, his probation was extended by 76 days from July 15, 1990. He was advised to submit medical certificate but he did not do so. He was given memo dated October 20, 1990 by the Bank. The petitioner again absented unauthorizedly from duty w. e.f. February 5, 1992. The respondent bank communicated to him vide memo dated August 13, 1998 (at page 18 of the paper book) that he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired from service of the respondent bank w.e.f. May 21, 1993. The petitioner did not take any remedial measure even after receipt of memo dated August 13, 1998 from the respondent bank stating that he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent bank w. e.f. May 21, 1993. He raised an industrial dispute for the first time after more than 5 years of memo dated August 13, 1998 about his alleged termination from the service of the respondent bank by filing an application before the Labour Commissioner. Conciliation proceedings were done by the Conciliation Officer who submitted the failure report to the concerned authorities on February 12, 2004 with a copy thereof to the petitioner also. The concerned authorities of the Government after taking into account the failure report of the Conciliation Officer and other relevant material were of the view that there was no existing dispute that was required to be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court and therefore vide impugned order dated May 31, 2004 communicated to the petitioner that there was no existing dispute which was required to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner filed a review against the order dated May 31, 2004 and the said review application was also dismissed vide order dated October 11, 2006 passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on the same ground that there was no existing referable dispute. The petitioner, thereafter, slept over the matter and did not take any remedial measure.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition after about 18 years of his absenting from the respondent bank from duty which he absented w.e.f. February 5, 1992 and now seeks a writ of mandamus to the appropriate Government for referring the dispute relating to his alleged termination for adjudication to the Labour Court.

(3.) On going through the impugned orders dated May 31, 2004 and October 11, 2006 referred above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the said orders which require interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.