ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') dated 9.2.2010 has been impugned in the present petition filed by the management.

(2.) It is a case in which the respondent-workman worked for a period of about 181 days during the period from October, 1989 to March, 1991 on daily wages as Messenger. A demand notice was got issued by him on 19.9.1997. As the dispute could not be resolved during re-conciliation, the matter was referred to the Tribunal, where the award was passed against the petitioner-management, which has been impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question referred to the Tribunal was as to whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman, a daily rated messenger in Indri Branch, was justified, but deviating therefrom and rejecting the objection raised by learned counsel for the management before the Tribunal, it had proceeded to deal with the case as if it had some inherent power under the Constitution of India and could pass any order. A circular of the bank dated 1.5.1991, the cut-off date in which was extended up to 2.8.1991, was considered and placing reliance thereupon, while not dealing with the issue referred, the Tribunal directed the management to absorb the workman into service in terms of policy dated 2.8.1991 and further awarded him full back wages and consequential relief. The submission is that the aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal is totally without jurisdiction. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner andJaipur v. Om Prakash Sharma, 2006 3 SCT 104. Second submission made by learned counsel for the management is that in the case in hand, the workman had admittedly worked only for 180 days way back in 1989 to 91. The demand notice was got issued only on 19.9.1997, i.e., after a delay of more than six years. The industrial dispute was not subsisting at that time. The workman having abandoned the job did not think it appropriate to raise the dispute immediately in March or April, 1991 when his services were allegedly terminated. He kept quiet for a long period. In such circumstances, the workman was not entitled to any relief whatsoever. In support of the submission, reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K. P. Madhavankutty, 2000 1 SCT 1088.