BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA KARMACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Bank has taken exception to the Award dated December 7, 1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 in Reference (IDA) No. CGIT -2/31 of 1991. By this award, the Tribunal has allowed the reference and has held that the action of the petitioner Bank in promoting the juniors of C.B. Bahaddarpurkar (hereinafter referred to as the workman) is not justified. The petitioner bank has been directed to pay special allowance to the workman from August 1, 1984 to November, 1991 within two months from the date of the award. Costs of Rs. 300/ - has also been awarded.

(2.) A settlement was arrived at between the petitioner bank and the union representing the employees of the bank in various cases on July 8,1978. It was with respect to filling in the posts of Special Assistants. Clause 9 of the settlement provides that, the groupwise seniority list should be prepared of all candidates as on December 31, of each year. The settlement of 1978 was then replaced by a settlement dated August 24, 1983. By the 1983 settlement, Clause 5 disqualifies those employees who were charge -sheeted or who have been punished after a departmental enquiry from; being offered the post of Special Assistant. Clause 5 reads as under:

(3.) THE workman was charge -sheeted and an enquiry was held against him. The charge -sheet is dated May 3, 1978. The departmental enquiry initiated against the workman resulted in him being punished with a warning on April 14, 1984. The order was communicated to the workman on April 25, 1984. The workman was not promoted to the post of Special Assistant in accordance with the settlement of 1983. Therefore he raised an industrial dispute contending that his junior had been promoted as a Special Assistant, contrary to the provisions of the settlement in vogue. As the Company did not pay heed to the demand of the workman to promote him, the respondent union sought a reference for adjudication of the dispute on behalf of the workman. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.