ALLAHABAD BANK, JULLUNDUR Vs. SHRI O.P. SINGLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, dated May 20, 1983, whereby the workman Shri Pran Nath Chopra, Respondent No. 2, was allowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - in lieu of back wages and reinstatement in service.

(2.) THE workman joined the Allahabad Bank as a Clerk and worked for about 13 years. He was placed under suspension on October 5, 1970 and finally discharged from service on March 21, 1973, vide copy, Annexure P.4. A domestic enquiry was held against him by the management (the Petitioner Bank) but no disciplinary action as such was taken against him. He was discharged from service on March 21, 1973, as noticed above, in view of the provisions of paragraph 19.12(c) of the bi -partite settlement as noticed in paragraph 11 of the award, which reads as under:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the reference made to the tribunal was: whether the action of the management in discharging the workman P.N. Chopra, Clerk, Jullundur Branch of the Bank with effect from March 26, 1973, as a measure of punishment is legal and justified? If not to what relief is the workman entitled. According to the learned Counsel, the tribunal has not given any finding to the effect as to whether the enquiry held against the workman was vitiated it any manner. According to the learned Counsel, thus, the tribunal has acted without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the reference. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Its workman : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 469 and F.T. & R. Co of India (P) Ltd, v. Its employees' Union : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1626, It was further contended that the workman had already taken the benefit under Section 33C(2) of the Act under paragraph 19.12 of the bi -partite settlement. Therefore, he could not be allowed to accept the same partly. Either the said clause was to be accepted or rejected as a whole. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon M G. Jadhav v. W.M. Bapat, 1933 LIC 1044, and Herbertsons Ltd. v. Workmen, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 322.