ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant hank being the assignee of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 23.7.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 12843 of 2010, filed by the Bank of Rajasthan for setting aside the award dated 13.5.2010 (Annexure P -7) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court -I, Chandigarh, has been dismissed. In this case, on a demand notice issued by respondent No. 1 Banwari Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'), the Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the industrial dispute as to whether the action of the management of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited in terminating the services of the workman with effect from 28.10.1995 was illegal or justified.

(2.) IN the claim petition, the workman pleaded that he was appointed as Peon on 4.5.1990 with the management and he had continuously worked as such up to 28.10.1995, when his services were terminated without any notice or one month wages in lieu of notice, and without payment of retrenchment compensation. It was further alleged that after terminating his services, few persons were employed by the management in the same capacity, therefore, the management has violated the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The management contested the claim of the workman and totally denied the relationship of master and servant. It was alleged that respondent -workman was never employed by the management as Peon or in any other capacity.

(3.) DURING the proceedings, the workman moved an application for summoning the record of the management pertaining to salary vouchers, the attendance register for the relevant period (i.e. 4.5.1990 to 28.10.1995), during which he allegedly worked with the management. On that application, the management was directed to file all the vouchers, by which payment had been made to daily wage workers during the said period, and to produce the attendance register for the aforesaid relevant period. The management did not file the said record on the pretext that the vouchers were in numerous and it was not possible to carry all the vouchers to the court. Then on 27.11.2009, with the consent of both the parties, it was ordered that counsel for the workman shall visit the office of the management to inspect those vouchers and the attendance register. But in spite of that order, the management did not permit the said counsel along with the workman to assess the vouchers for the period in question, on the pretext that the Tribunal had allowed the counsel for the workman to inspect the record and not to the workman.