INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Bank is questioning Ext. P3 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The second respondent was employed casually/temporarily in the Bank from 4.1.1993 onwards till 30.5.1998. When his employment was stopped he raised an industrial dispute and the following issue was referred for adjudication : "Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in relation to their Changannur Branch in terminating the services of Shri. P.S. Rajeev, a Messenger with effect from 13.7.1998 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" PETITIONER Bank is questioning Ext. P3 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The second respondent was employed casually/temporarily in the Bank from 4.1.1993 onwards till 30.5.1998. When his employment was stopped he raised an industrial dispute and the following issue was referred for adjudication : "Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in relation to their Changannur Branch in terminating the services of Shri. P.S. Rajeev, a Messenger with effect from 13.7.1998 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

(2.) IT is not disputed that second respondent was employed intermittently from 4.1.1993 onwards till 30.5.1998. This fact was admitted by the Bank also. But according to the Bank, he was working as Messenger on various days on leave vacancy as can be seen from paragraph 2 of the original petition. The records also proved that he had worked for more than 240 days in an year. Therefore, Tribunal found that Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable and that Sec. 25F was not complied with. According to the Bank, as per Ext. P2 objection reason for stopping the employment was that second respondent was over qualified to hold the post of a messenger or sweeper in the Bank and that his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. There is no direction in the award for absorbing him or giving him regular employment. Since he had served the Bank for more than 240 days in an year at the time of termination and he was regularly doing such work for five years, while terminating his service conditions under sec. 25F should have been complied with. Even after implementing the award in full, perhaps the Bank may be justified in terminating him after complying with the conditions of Sec. 258, if he is not qualified or requirement and other conditions are satisfied. IT was already ordered by order dated 24.8.2001 to pay his last drawn wages under Sec. 17B. That order is confirmed and in any event, the employee is entitled to the above amount. That amount can be deducted from the backwages payable. (See Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel ((1999) 2 SCC 106); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Balakrishnan (2001 II LLJ 444); and State Bank of Sikkim Employees' Association and another v. State of Sikkim (2001 II LLJ 797). IT is not a case where his services were terminated by non-renewal of the contract on the expiry of the contract so as to attract Sec. 2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was no written contract herein. He was employed as messenger, sweeper or similar kind of job on leave vacancy or according to job requirement or temporary need. His reinstatement is to that kind of work only. Same requirement exist now also. Backwages can be given only on the basis of average monthly earning during the previous year of the retrenchment. In fact, Senior Manager by Ext. R2(b) has recommended the management to keep him in temporary messenger panel even before the award. IT reads as follows : "..The applicant is being engaged by us absolutely on daily wages from 4.1.93 for office assistance work. We have found honest and hard working. We recommend he may be empanelled as temporary messengers panel." Since he was working for more than 240 days in an year and his employment from 4.1.1993 to 30.5.1998 is admitted, his termination of service without complying with Sec. 25F is illegal. The facts of this case are similar to the case considered by the Apex court in Deep Chandra v. State of U.P. and another (2001 AIR SCW 4862(2)). Therefore, I see no ground to interfere with Ext. P3 award. In this connection I also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. N. Sundaramoney (1976 I LLJ 476) and a Five Member Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab Land Devt. & Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1990 II LLJ 70). No grounds are made out for interfering with the award. The Original Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the Bank. If any, after implementation of the award.