KARAM CHAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 1.11.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWP No. 10923 of 2010. The case of the appellant -workman is that despite working for 180 days during the calendar years from October 1989 to March 1991, he was not given the benefit of policy dated 1.5.1991 by the respondent -bank which envisages that the service of those persons who had completed 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year shall be regularised". He had applied for regularisation of his service under the said Policy, however, he was declined the benefit of aforesaid Policy without disclosing any reason and calling him for interview. The workman by serving demand notice raised an industrial dispute. Government of India while exercising its power under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, 'the Act'), referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court -1, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Labour Court') :

(2.) The respondent -Bank filed objection that the workman had not completed 240 days of work and, thus, was not entitled to any protection under the Act. The Labour Court was not competent to go beyond the reference relating to the "nature of termination".

(3.) Despite raising the above specific objection by the respondent -Bank before the Labour Court about its jurisdiction, it answered the reference in favour of the appellant -workman relying upon the extended policy dated 2.8.1991, whereby the services of workman had to be regularised, in case he had completed 30 days of work in a calendar year, vide award dated 9.2.2010.