SUNIL KUMAR SHUKLA SRI RAMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT CHAIRMAN PRATAPGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award-dated 7.8.1998 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the Head Office of respondent No. 2 at Kshettriya Gramin Bank on 1.9.1986 as typist-cum-clerk at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day on a permanent and regular vacancy but no appointment letter in favour of the petitioner was issued. However, the petitioner had worked till 7.9.1987 and without any order, the services of the petitioner were terminated. It was assured by respondent No. 2 that he would be accommodated. When the petitioner was not given appointment, he raised a dispute before the Labour Court. Before the Conciliation Officer, there was no settlement, as such as required under Section 10, the matter was referred for adjudication. A written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner to the effect mat the petitioner has completed 240 days in one calendar year, has continuously worked from 1.9.1986 to 7.9.1987 and his services, have been illegally terminate without complying the procedure of retrenchment. A reply was submitted by respondent No. 2 and ii has been stated in the written statement that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The petitioner has worked in different spells when necessity arose. It has also been denied that the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis; as such the service regulation of the bank is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The Labour Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties though has come to the conclusion that termination of the petitioner is bad being in breach of provisions of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act but he will not be entitled for reinstatement and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- has been given in lieu of reinstatement. The said award was given by the order-dated 7.9.1998

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Labour Court has not given any finding regarding documents filed on behalf of the employer and employee in support of their pleadings as to how the Court has come to the conclusion that the workman has worked only for 155 days. The Labour Court without disclosing the nature of the said document, the finding of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside The finding recorded by the Labour Court at the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is against the evidence on record because no notice as required, was given in writing before retrenchment to the petitioner, as such, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. It has further been submitted that when the Labour Court has recorded a finding that retrenchment of the petitioner is against the provisions of Section 25-H and 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, no relief other than reinstatement with full back wages should have been awarded by the Labour Court. Further submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was regular employee, as such, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated or retrenched without following the proper procedure as provided under the law.