REGIONAL MANAGER BANK OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman was appointed as a casual daily rated worker from 4.1.989 and continued to work on a daily rate basis till 12.9.1998 when his services was terminated by the bank. The workman, being aggrieved by the termination of his services, raised an industrial dispute. Before the Labour Court, the workman specifically contended that he was appointed on a casual basis by the Branch Manager and that he was given appointment on a day to day basis and in this fashion, he continued to work continuously for almost 10 years and, that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. In support of his submission the petitioner also filed an original certificate given by the Branch Manager indicating the length of service, which he had worked during the tenure of that Branch Manager.

(2.) The petitioner bank denied the claim of the workman contending that the initial appointment of the petitioner was ex-facie illegal and against the procedure. The petitioner contended that temporary or permanent vacancy could only be filled up by the Regional Manager in accordance with paragraph 20.7 of the bi-parte settlement and that the Branch Manager had no authority in law to appoint the workman in question. The bank also denied the certificate issued by the Branch Manager contending that they doubted the genuineness of the said certificate.

(3.) The Tribunal, after considering the entire material held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and that he worked continuously from 1989 till 1998 on a day to day basis. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 25-F had not been complied with, inasmuch as, retrenchment compensation etc. was not paid to the workman before retrenching his services and consequently the order of termination was illegal. The Tribunal also found that juniors to the petitioner continued to remain in service and that the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act had also been violated, which provides that the last person employed should be the first to be retrenched which had not been done by the employers. The Tribunal further found that after terminating the service of the workman, fresh workers were engaged which indicates that there was a continuous requirement of work. The Tribunal accordingly held that the management of the bank was not justified in terminating the services of the workman, who was engaged as casual worker on daily rate basis. The Tribunal accordingly directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition.