VIJAYA BANK WORKERS ORGANISATION Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, MANAGEMENT BY VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to I.D. No. 25 of 2000 including the award dated 27.11.2001 and to quash the same.

(2.) It is seen that Smt. R. Palayammal has worked continuously as a part-time sweeper right from 16.12.1995 onwards and continued to work upto 04.03.1999 and thus, she has completed more than 1175 days of continuous service as temporary part-time sweeper in the Respondent bank. Even before 1995, she was also working in the Respondent bank at various other branches of the Respondent viz., Mount Road, Adyar, Saidapet, Venkatanarayana Road and Vadapalani, and the total service rendered in all the above said branches from 25.10.1990 to 01.09.1994 has again amounted to another 294 days. During the said days, the Respondent bank was paying only a paltry sum of Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- per day on weekly basis and this practice commenced since 16.12.1995, which was the initial date of appointment of the said workman, and continued till 04.03.1999. Whileso, they have decided to fill up the above said post of part-time sweeper at the Anna Nagar branch, but without considering the long and continuous services rendered by Smt. R. Palayammal as a part-time sweeper, the Respondent bank, by its order dated 04.02.1999, appointed one Sri. K. Sampath in 1/3rd scale wages in the said branch as part-time sweeper. Thereafter, the Respondent bank had chosen to terminate the services of Smt. R. Palayammal, and as a result of the unjust and unreasonable act of the Respondent bank, the Petitioner-union raised an Industrial Dispute on 19.02.1999, and the first conciliation proceeding was held on 13.03.1999, followed by subsequent meetings held on 12.04.1999, etc., which did not prove any positive results. Finally, the Conciliation Officer submitted a report, on failure of conciliation, to the Ministry of Labour on 18.08.1999, under Section 12(4) of the . The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide its communication bearing No. L-12011/118/99/IR (B-II), dated 14.01.2000, has informed the Petitioner union that the said dispute is not fit for adjudication, for the reason that the instant dispute has been pending before the High Court, Madras, vide W.P. No. 3345 of 1994. Thereafter, the Petitioner-union submitted a detailed representation dated 28.02.2000, to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, reiterating that the industrial dispute relating to the termination of concerned workman is an independent one from that of the writ petition pending before the High Court, Chennai, and requested the Government to refer the same for adjudication. On reviewing the matter, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by issuing a fresh order dated 21.06.2000, referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai / first Respondent herein. On consideration, the first Respondent refused to consider the claim made by the Union. Therefore, the Petitioner-Union has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the first Respondent.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the first Respondent ought to have seen that, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, even part-time workmen are entitled to various benefits and they can also raise an Industrial Dispute with regard to the termination and in that regard, Smt. R. Palayammal is entitled to be reinstated as part time sweeper with full backwages and such a relief cannot be denied under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.