PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri K.L. Grover, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Shri Ramesh Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, holding that the retrenchment of the workman from service was bad in law and that the petitioner was liable to reinstate the workman in service and pay the back wages at the rate at which the workman was lastly paid.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition is, that the workman contended that he was appointed as a Peon-cum-Waterman was of a permanent nature and that he had worked for a period of 308 days upto May 31, 1985, and that, the management retrenched the workman without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman further contended that since the retrenchment compensation was not paid, the cessation of the services of the workman was ex facie illegal and, consequently, he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages.

(3.) On the other hand, the Bank came up with the stand that the workman was engaged as a casual labour by the erstwhile Bank known as Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, and that he had worked intermittently. A specific plea was raised that the workman had worked only for 22 days initially and 13 days subsequently, and that, he had never worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and therefore, the question of compliance of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act did not arise.