BANK OF INDIA Vs. NAMDEO SADBAJI ZADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition No.2067 of 1991 is filed by the employer Bank under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 1st November, 1990 delivered by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Case No.C.G.I.T./L.C.(R) (60)/1986. By this award the C.G.I.T. has answered the reference about the termination of services of the respondent No.1 Namdeo Zade in affirmative and has directed the employer bank to reinstate him as Sepoy with continuity of service and other benefits but without back wages and monetary benefits.

(2.) THE Writ Petition No.1554 of 1991 is filed by respondent No.1 Shri Namdeo Zade challenging denial of back wages and monetary benefits to him by the above award. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal is the respondent No.2 in both these petitions. The facts in brief giving rise to this dispute can be summarised as under :

(3.) THE respondent No.1 employee on 17-12-86 filed his statement of claim in the reference proceedings pointing out that he worked for 18-5-1982 till 19-9-1986 continuously on which date he was orally terminated. He states that he was appointed after oral interview taken by the then Manager. He further states that he was being paid Rs.18.62 as his wages per day including dearness allowance. He also got Daftari Allowance when he worked in leave vacancy and he was also paid bonus by the petitioner Bank. He states that Manager Shri Derghashwar appointed him after interview and another Branch Manager Mr. Valvi terminated him orally as per alleged orders of Zonal Office on the ground that he was not recruited through Employment Exchange. He further states that after his termination one Santosh Zade was employed by the petitioner between 18-9-84 to 2-4-85 and thereafter from April, 1985 one Rahim Khan Pathan was employed by terminating the services of Santosh Zade. He states that both these persons had never worked in the petitioner Bank previously and thus, were junior to him. He contends that his services were terminated deliberately only with a view to deny him various benefits provided under Industrial Disputes Act though the work was available. Thus, it is unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner. He was not given any notice as contemplated by the provisions of section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further states that he has completed 240 days continuous service as contemplated by section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further states that he was performing work of permanent nature directly connected with the banking nature and such work is still available. He therefore, prays for continuity with full back wages.