ANAND SINGH ADHIKARI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner workman had raised the dispute which was referred for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal vide reference under dated 15.7.1992 with the following terms of reference : "Whether the claim of Shri Anand Singh Adhikari that he had worked in the Bank of Baroda, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad Branch, for 7 months from 10.5.90 to 10.12.90 on daily wages and was forced to sign on payment vouchers in different names during the period is correct ? Is he eligible for consideration for permanent appointment in terms of the Bank's advertisement in Nav Bharat Times dated 24.8.1991 ? What relief, if any, is the workman entitled to ?

(2.) It is clear that the reference order is in two parts namely :

(3.) As far as first part of the reference is concerned the Tribunal did not render any findings. Thus the Tribunal only stated that there was no reason to believe that the management would ask any person to sign in different names for the work done by him and on the assumption that the workman had worked for 7 months proceeded to decide the second part of the reference holding that since the workman had not worked for 240 days he had no right to be regularised in service without following procedure meant for recruitment for regular employees in the Nationalised bank. Second part of the reference order does not stipulate regularisation of the workman but regarding petitioner entitlement to permanent employment in terms of advertisement in the Nav Bharat Times dated 24.8.91. Therefore what the Industrial Tribunal was to decide was as to whether the petitioner was eligible for consideration in terms of the advertisement. It is stated by the petitioner that any workman who works for 90 days becomes eligible to apply for permanent appointment pursuant to such advertisement and this was the pleadings before the C.G.I.T. Admittedly the case has not been considered from this angle by the C.G.I.T. and instead the C.G.I.T. proceeded on the basis that petitioner had not worked for 240 days and therefore not entitled to regularisation.