SECY., PANPOSH CO Vs. KHETRABASI TRIPATHY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award dated 21st Oct., 1993 passed in I.D. Case No. 70 of 1991 is under challenge whereby and where under, the award has been passed holding the termination of the workman illegal and unjustified with a direction to reinstate the workman in his former post i.e., Night Watchman forthwith and to pay full back wages with continuity of service and seniority.

(2.) Brief facts of the case of the workman is that the workman had been engaged as contingent Night Watchman under the management for a period of 89 days on daily wages of Rs.15.00 and accordingly joined on 20.8.1986 and continued till 3.6.1988. The management issued separate appointment order for the above periods in different dates and ultimately on 23.7.1987, he was appointed on regular basis as night watchman in the scale of pay of Rs.206.00 to Rs.280.00 with other allowances. He was served with notice of termination dated 30.4.1988 to be terminated w.e.f. 1.5.1988 without assigning any reason and accordingly the workman was relieved from duty w.e.f. 31.5.1988. He was handed over his charges on 3.6.1988. He has not been paid retrenchment compensation as per Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also he has not been paid with back wages from 1.6.1988 to 3.6.1988, his security deposit of Rs.100.00, hence he has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and service benefits, for that a dispute has been raised before the adjudicating authority.

(3.) While on the other hand, case of the management is that the second party-workman was appointed as contingent night watchman for 89 days vide order No.79 dated 20.8.1986 as per the order of the President of the bank. The appointment was renewed vide order dated 26.11.1988, 11.4.1987 and 10.7.1987 and then the President of the Bank appointed him without following due procedure. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Orissa vide order No.5278 dated 26.2.1988 advised the Bank to recruit with prior approval and to terminate all temporary/contingent appointment and in view of such instruction, the management served one month notice to the workman and on completion of the notice period, the workman was offered with retrenchment compensation but however he refused to receive the same. The workman had not also discharged duty from 1.6.1988 to 3.6.1988, as such he was not entitled to get wages for the said period.