LAWS(BOM)-1999-7-16

KULDEO PRAKASH BHAGWANDAS GOND Vs. DENA BANK

Decided On July 08, 1999
KULDEO PRAKASH BHAGWANDAS GOND Appellant
V/S
DENA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Awards (Part I) and (Part II) dated May 20, 1997 and October 17, 1997 respectively made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in Reference (CGIT) 11/46 of 1996 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner Kuldeo Prakash Bhagwandas Gond belongs to Gond caste. Under the Presidential Order Gond caste is declared as Scheduled Tribe by virtue of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh has recognised Gond Caste as Scheduled Caste. In other States including the State of Maharashtra Gond Caste is continued to be regarded as Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by a Banking Service Recruitment Board, the petitioner applied for the post of cashier-cum-clerk under Scheduled Tribe category. In the application form the petitioner had mentioned that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe category. Alongwith the application he annexed caste certificate issued by the competent authority in U. P. and i. e. said caste certificate shows the caste of the petitioner as Scheduled Caste. By an appointment letter dated March 20, 1984 the petitioner was appointed in the service of the respondent Dena Bank as a cashier-cum-clerk. Nearly 9 years thereafter an enquiry was started against the petitioner on the ground that he had falsely shown that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as follows:

(3.) THE petitioner raised an industrial dispute which came to be processed and ultimately resulted in a reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. By Award Part I the Tribunal held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse. By Award Part II the Tribunal held that the action of the management was legal and justified and rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and backwages.