LAWS(PAT)-2011-2-91

SUDHA RATNA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 09, 2011
SUDHA RATNA SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present writ petition challenging the validity of the Award dated 1.3.2002 (Annexure-14) passed in Reference No. 92 of 1993 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, whereby the claim of the workman, Petitioner herein, has been negatived and his disengagement or termination from service of the Respondent-Bank has been held to be justified. The Petitioner also prays for a direction for his reinstatement in the service of Respondent-Bank with all back wages. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has made an alternative prayer that if the claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement with back wages is not accepted by this Court in the given facts of the case, then in that event, the Respondent-Bank may be directed to suitably compensate the Petitioner by giving him adequate compensation.

(2.) It is admitted case of the parties that Petitioner was appointed/engaged on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier on 17.12.1984 of the Respondent-Bank at its R-Block Branch, Patna. He was allowed to work on the said post till 6.3.1985 and was removed/terminated/retrenched w.e.f. 7.3.1985 without any notice. Only controversy regarding his employment is that according to the Petitioner, he was appointed on the permanent post on permanent basis by following the procedure prescribed under law by the competent authority, whereas according to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the Petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary post on temporary basis by the Respondent-Branch Manager, who was not legally authorized to make such appointment.

(3.) Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has assailed the validity and legality of the impugned Award dated 1.3.2002 (Annexure-14) primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was engaged/appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier and he was allowed to work for 80 days under the Respondent-Bank and his removal/termination from service, without notice or any valid justification, would come under the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only). It is also argued that in view of the admitted position that the Petitioner was allowed to work on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier for 80 days under the Respondent-Bank, his re-trenchment without any notice and consequential actions of the Respondent Bank (Management) are in complete violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act. According to him, Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" in short) have also been violated by the Respondent-Bank. In the same vein, it is submitted that retrenchment of the Petitioner from service will be deemed to be unfair labour practice adopted by the Respondent-Bank. Therefore, it is submitted' that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated on the post with all back wages.