N. KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. CITY UNION BANK REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, KUMBAKONAM AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the workman challenging an Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Chennai (for short CGIT) in I.D.No. 396 of 2004 dated 27.06.2006. By the impugned Award, the CGIT held that the workman had raised the dispute belatedly and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and that he had failed to prove that he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act) and also the fact that he had approached the District Munsif Court with a civil suit which was also dismissed. On account of these factors, the CGIT held that he is not entitled for any relief. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed. The writ petition was admitted on 31.10.2008. Pending the writ petition, the application for interim stay was dismissed by this Court on the same day.

(2.) ON notice from this Court, the first respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.06.2009. The workman also filed an additional typed set including an order passed by the District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai regarding change of his date of birth. The first respondent Bank has also filed a typed set dated 14.07.2011 containing all documents which were made available before the CGIT. The facts which led to the passing of the impugned Award are as follows: -

(3.) HOWEVER , contending that his termination dated 12.03.1983 was illegal, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). The said officer after notice to the Bank, as he could not bring about any compromise between the parties sent a failure report to the Government of India. The Government of India through their Ministry of Labour, by a letter dated 23.07.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication by the CGIT. The workman had not explained the inordinate delay between the date of termination and the raising of the dispute. On receipt of the order of reference made by the Government of India, notice was issued to the petitioner and the first respondent.