DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. BADRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.N. Srivastava, J. By judgment dated 2.5.2002, I allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned award dated 25.1.1987. Certain provisions of the U.P. Industrial Dispute were not brought in my notice during the course of the argument on behalf of the parties. After pronouncement of the judgment those provisions came to may notice. Hence notices were issued to the learned counsel for the parties to show cause as to why the order dated 2.5.2002 he not reviewed.

(2.) Both learned counsel for the parties appeared before me and heard. Admitted facts are that opposite party worked as class IV employee between 3.2.1972 to 28.11.1974. O.P No. 1 along with 28 workmen were retrenched from service on 28.11.1974. It is not disputed that opposite party No. 1 was assured for re-employment in future. Out of them 23 class IV employees junior to the opposite party and 4 senior to him were retrenched. According to opposite party No. 1 the Bank appointed a number of junior persons but he was not re-appointed. Hence the opposite party workman applied for referring a dispute to the Labour Court.

(3.) The Labour Court held that the reference of re-appointment on the ground of retrenchment was maintainable in the Labour Court and the workman is entitled get re-appointment.