PADAM CHANDRA JAIN Vs. YOGENDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in CWJC No 2566/88 assails an award dated 23rd November, 1987, dismissing the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement as being overstate. Similarly, the claim of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2518/88 for reinstatement has been dismissed as being overstate by an award dated 30th November, 1987.

(2.) In C W J C No. 2566/88 and C.W.J.C. 2518/88 the awards were rendered on references made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No 2) Dhanbad, under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Re : C.W.J.C. No. 2566 of 1988.

(3.) In this writ petition the petitioner was engaged by the State Bank of India as a Cashier on a purely temporary basis between the period 4-9-1967 and 28-5-1968 at Patna Main Branchof the Bank. The engagements of for a fixed in terms of letters of engagement. The total number of working days was 268 days. The Tribunal found that the termination was not preceded by a statutory notice, even though it was retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act It also found that the dispute was raised almost after 18 years of the termination It is believed that in between the raising of dispute and the termination,the concerned workman did not at all file a representation, because beyond production of postal certificate, even the office copy of the representation had not been produced before the Tribunal. It, therefore, held that the 'certificates of posting' (Ext. W-l series) could not show that the concerned workman had sent any letter to the Management for his employment after termination of his service. The Industrial Dispute was found to have been raised sometime in the year 1982 or 1983. The reference was made by the appropriate Government on 17th January, 1986. Acccording to the Tribunal, the delay of 14 years remained unexplained and, therefore, the claim was overstate justifying no relief. The petitioner's scale of pay was Rs. 140/- per month plus usual dearness allowance and house allowance. Re : C.W.J.C. No. 2518 of 1988.