DENA BANK EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by Dena Bank Employees' Union, represented by its Secretary on behalf of one Narsimloo (workman) being aggrieved by the Award dated 14-9-1998 in I.D. No.51 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I at Hyderabad, wherein the dispute raised and referred to under Sections 10(l)(d) and 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') was answered against the workman.

(2.) The Union espoused the cause of the workman, who was working as Badli Peon in Tandur Branch of Dena Bank. According to the petitioner, the workman-Narsimloo worked from November, 1989 to July, 1991 and again from 28-8-1992 to 2-2-1995 continuously as Badli Peon in the respondent-Bank and his services were terminated with effect from 2-2-1995 without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act. Conciliation proceedings ended in failure and ultimately, Government of India referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad:

(3.) Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workman, W.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Wl to W15 were marked. On behalf of the Management, M.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M1 to M3 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not place satisfactory evidence on record in proof of the fact that the workman worked for 240 days in any calendar year prior to the date of termination and he is entitled to be empanelled and absorbed in view of the bipartite settlement entered into between the Management and the Employees' Union and thus he is entitled for reinstatement. Further, the petitioner did not place any material with regard to number of days the workman worked in the calendar year preceding the date of termination and as in Ex.W6-statement, from 1989 to 1991, the Sundays and public holidays were included, but the workman is not entitled to do so. No adverse inference can be drawn against the management for not placing material on record in proof of its claim that the workman worked for less than 240 days in all the calendar years, though there can be no doubt that the workman worked from 1989 to 1991 and again from 1992 to 1995. As the workman was not in continuous service for 240 days as defined under Section 25-B of the Act, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, he was not entitled for any relief as sought for.