BANK OF BARODA Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.Darshan M. Parikh for the petitioner Bank of Baroda and Mr. Mansuri, learned Advocate appearing for the workmen. Through this petition, the petitioner bank has challenged the award made by the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Vadodara in Reference (ITC) No. 7 of 1998 dated 31.12.2005 wherein the tribunal has set aside the order of termination dated 10.9.1996 in favour of the concerned workmen namely Shri K.L. Bhegde, R.A. Rathod, M.U. Shevale, K.V.Solanki, B.R. Soni, B.R. Solanki, FM Solanki, GD Chunara, DZ Parmar, AM Rao,AD Vankar, and GB Suthar has also directed the Bank of Baroda to pay Rs. 1,50,000.00 Rupees one lac fifty thousand only to each of the workmen concerned and to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 to the union towards costs.

(2.) This Court has by order dated 10.4.2006, issued rule and notice as to interim relief returnable on 24.4.2006. Ad.interim relief in terms of para 7(B) of the petition was also granted by this Court. Matter has, therefore, been considered by this Court for interim relief.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh has submitted that the workmen have also challenged the award in question and their petition has also been admitted by this Court. It was also his submission that the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 are not applicable to the facts of this case. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corpration v. Intejam Ali Zafri reported in [2006] 6 SCC page 275. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, he further submits that a person who has not been recruited as per regular procedure under the recruitment rules is not entitled for the benefit of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 in case termination of services of such an employee. It was also submitted that the case of similarly situated employees was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1028 of 1996 in Special Civil Application NO. 642 of 1996. In reply to this contention, it was pointed out by the learned Advocate Mr. Mansuri on behalf of the workmen that the rejection of claim of such similarly situated employees was in a direct petition before this Court. According to him, though they may be similarly situated employees but they adopted different forum for redressal of their grievance against the termination order. It was also his submission that in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction, this Court is having limited powers and jurisdiction for interference with the impugned action and the Industrial Tribunal in reference proceedings is having wide powers while adjudicating the reference and, therefore, rejection of case by this Court in LPA cannot be considered against or adverse as has been suggested by the learned Advocate Mr. Parikh before this Court. He also submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000.00 has in all been awarded for each of the workman concerned as lumsum amount in lieu of reinstatement and back wages after a period of eleven years and it being a money decree, therefore, some part of the compensation may be released in favour of the workmen concerned for enabling them to maintain their families during this intervening period. He also submitted that the Industrial Tribunal (Centre) Baroda has not granted reinstatement to the workmen concerned and, therefore, during the pendency of this petition, workmen are unable to pray for even benefits of Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 and object of Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 is to see that during the higher up proceedings, at least, workman may get something to maintain himself and his family, otherwise, fight between two unequal, mighty bank and weak workman would ultimately ruin the workman and therefore, some part of the amount of compensation is required to be released in favour of the workmen concerned for enabling them to survive and maintain themselves during the intervening period. According to him, when reinstatement has been stayed, being subsistence allowance, workman is entitled for full wages last drawn by him which is not recoverable or refundable in case if ultimately the contentions of the management, bank in this case are upheld by this Court and, therefore, it was his submission that some part of the amount of compensation released in favour of the workmen concerned, otherwise, it would amount to denial of legitimate right to workman when employer has filed petition challenging award in higher up proceedings,