PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/Bank has challenged the award dated 08.8.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court -II in ID No. 7/2000 in case titled Sh. Neeraj Kumar v. Punjab National Bank.

(2.) BY virtue of the aforesaid award, the reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Tribunal as to whether the services of Sh.Neeraj Kumar Water Boy/Peon were terminated illegally and unjustifiably w.e.f. 12.4.1999 was an issue. It was also referred to the learned Tribunal as to what relief the said workman was entitled to. The respondent/workman filed his statement of claim in response to the notice issued by the learned Tribunal and the petitioner/Bank also filed its written statement contesting the claim of the respondent/workman. The parties have adduced their evidence before the learned Tribunal and thereafter the Tribunal gave a finding that the termination of the respondent's services was in violation of provisions laid down under Section 25(N) and 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly, the said termination was held to be illegal and unjustified.

(3.) THE petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned award has preferred the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner has very fairly confined the challenge only to the question of the award by virtue of which the learned Tribunal has directed reinstatement and payment of back wages to the extent of 20% to the respondent/workman. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/workman's own case is that he has worked with the petitioner/Bank only from 1st August, 1998 to 11th April, 1999 as a Water boy/Peon. The aforesaid period which happens to be just over 240 days so as to meet the requirement of law to entitled the respondent/workman the requisite relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been contended keeping in view the facts the respondent/workman had been engaged with the petitioner only for a short duration of approximately 81/2 month and the fact that he was employed as a Water Boy/Peon and paid a mere wages of Rs. 500/ - per month, therefore, it would be a fit case where the learned Tribunal instead of directing the reinstatement and payment of back wages it ought to have ordered the payment of one time lump sum compensation to the respondent/workman.