AJIT KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Award dated 28.3.2011 passed by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh.

(2.) The second respondent commenced a new Branch at Saha. Before operation/function of new Branch, the petitioner was engaged for some labour work by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Saha who was supposed to work as a Manager after commencement of the new Punjab National Bank branch at Saha. For the purpose of engaging the services of the petitioner on permanent basis or temporary, the Branch Manager sought necessary clarification from his superiors on 9.7.2004. Before Superior Officers considering the proposal sent by the Branch Manager, the Branch Manager noticed that the petitioner do not fulfil the necessary qualification. Therefore, petitioner's services have been stated to be discontinued from 5.11.2004. In the meanwhile, in the month of August, 2004, there was a correspondence between the Branch Manager and Superiors relating to the appointment of the petitioner when a new Manager was posted. The petitioner is stated to have submitted an application for appointing him vide Annexure M-4 dated 1.2.2005. At this juncture, the Branch Manager noticed that the petitioner had produced two certificates dated 10.10.1998 and 23.7.2004 passed in 6th and 4th class which were marked as Annexures M2 and M4/3. The respondent-Bank after noticing the suppression of facts by the petitioner discontinued the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 5.11.2004. Arising out of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner approached CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. The said Court declined to grant relief to the petitioner. Thus, the present petition has been presented.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was appointed prior to 5.7.2004 i.e. before operation of new branch of Punjab National Bank at Saha. Thereafter, he was continued till 5.3.2005. The Labour Court failed to appreciate Annexure M-4 dated 1.2.2005 application made by the petitioner for employment in which he has stated that he is unemployed. The letter is in English which is stated to be written by the staff of the Bank. In the letter wrongly, they have mentioned that the petitioner is unemployed. On the contrary, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the reply statement filed before the CGIT, the respondent-Bank have admitted that the petitioner has been paid salary for the month of February, 2005 which is evident that as on 1.2.2005, the petitioner was very much in service. Therefore, the contents of Annexure M-4 dated 1.2.2005 that the petitioner was unemployed is contrary to the facts and records of the respondent-Bank. Thus, the petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner has completed 241 days from 5.7.2004 to 5.3.2005. Hence, the finding given by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh is contrary to documents as well as facts.