CHHOTE LAL Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Dharmendra Singh, holding the brief of Sri Kuldeep Jauhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Srivastava, holding the brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent bank.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award whereby his claim with regard to the validity of his order of termination was rejected by the Industrial tribunal, New Delhi. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as a peon allegedly w. e. f. June 10, 1991 and worked for a limited period of time and thereafter his services was dispensed with. It is alleged that the petitioner was re-engaged and eventually worked till November 14, 1994 when his services was terminated without any prior notice. The petitioner contended that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, his services could not be terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of issuing notice and payment of retrenchment compensation which had not been done.

(3.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by his alleged termination of services, raised a dispute which was referred by the Ministry of Labour to the Industrial Tribunal, in the year 1997. Before the Tribunal the employers, namely, the bank, denied the claim of the petitioner and submitted that he had never worked as a permanent peon nor had he completed 240 days in a calendar year.