STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. M V RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition the State Bank of India challenges the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 19/09/1979 whereby the Tribunal held that the ServiCes of the respondent M. V. Raval were illegally terminated and directed his reinstatement with full back wages with effect from the date of termination. The Tribunal further directed the petitioner Bank to pay the arrears of wages within one month from the date of the publication of the award in the Gazette.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as under. The respondent was employed as a Clerk in the Mehsana Branch of the petitioner Bank by their letter dated 10/10/1974. His services were however terminated on 9/06/1975 without assigning any reason and without making payment in lieu of notice. The workman thereupon made representations to the Bank and ultimately approached the Conciliation Officer Government of India for intervention under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). Before the Conciliation Officer a settlement was reached between the petitioner Bank and the workman on 10/10/1975. Under the settlement it was agreed between the parties as follows :

(3.) In support of the aforesaid demand the workman filed his claim statement on 3/10/1978. The Bank filed a written statement answering the said demand on 27/10/1978. The Bank contended that the workman had joined service with effect from 16/10/1974 under the letter of appointment dated 10/10/1974 The fact of the Bank having entered into a settlement before the Conciliation Officer on 10/10/1975 was not disputed but it was explained that the said settlement having been entered into under the mistaken belief that the workman ad passed the N.I.B.M. test could not be implemented as it was subsequently realised that another workman having the same initials and surname had passed the N.I.B.M. test and not the respondent before us. This fact was explained to the Conciliation Officer at a subsequent meeting and it was thereafter that the Bank agreed to give a fresh appointment to the respondent on condition that the respondent will pass the N.I.B.M. test to be held in March 1977. As pointed out earlier admittedly the respondent appeared at the N.I.B.M. test held in March 1977 but the results declared in October 1977 showed that he had failed to pass the test. This result was communicated to the respondent on 18/12/1977. As it was not permissible to continue the employment of the respondent any further in view of his having failed to clear the test his services were terminated forthwith. The Bank therefore contended before the Industrial Tribunal that it had given full opportunity to the workman to qualify for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank but unfortunately the workman failed to clear the test with the result that the Bank was obliged to terminate the employment of the respondent It was therefore urged on behalf of the Bank that the demand raised by the workman in the reference could not be legally granted and the reference must therefore be rejected.