ZONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur has filed this writ petition against the award dated August 3, 2000 given by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna on a reference made to it under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was in the following terms:

(2.) THE case of the workman was that the concerned workman Dineshwar Tiwary was engaged as a temporary peon in the Lalganj branch of the Bank on September 1, 1988 and he worked there continuously and uninterruptedly till December 30, 1992 when he was removed illegally in violation of the statutory provisions and in breach of the Bank's circular, incorporating the agreement between the management and the Union. According to the workmen, during the period of his engagement of over four years, Dineshwar Tiwary duly worked as a Peon from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. he did the work of cleaning of chairs, tables etc., stored water for normal use in the branch, served water to the members of the staff, carried ledgers, registers, token books from one table to another, did the work of stitching of notes and vouchers, carried letters to the post -office and performed other sundry jobs as directed by the Branch Manager and other members of staff. He was, paid wages on weekly basis on daily rates of Rs. 3, Rs. 5, Rs. 10 and Rs. 20 from time to time. Further case of the workmen was that during this period there was a bi -partite agreement, at the head office level, between the management of the Bank and the Union representing the workmen. On the basis of the agreement the Bank issued a circular on March 12, 1991 which inter alia provided for absorption of all temporary employees who had put in 240 days of temporary service in any continuous period of 12 months during the period January 1, 1982 to December 31, 1990. A number of temporary employees were absorbed in the service of the Bank on the basis of this circular. The case of the concerned workman Dineshwar Tiwary was also fully covered by this circular but the local Branch Manager, for some reason, failed to forward his case for absorption to the higher authorities. When the case of the petitioner was not sent to the higher authorities despite repeated requests, the concerned workman made a representation to the Regional Officer. On the basis of his representation the Regional Officer asked for the details concerning him and this led to an exchange of correspondences between the Branch Manager, the Regional Manager and the Zonal Office. At one stage the Regional Manager was satisfied that the concerned workman had worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months and he was entitled to absorption in terms of the Bank's circular, dated March 12, 1991. The Regional Manager accordingly, made a recommendation to the Zonal office of the Bank. Finally, however, no action was taken in that regard and the concerned workman was removed even without giving him any retrenchment notice/notice pay and compensation in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the workmen, therefore, the removal of Dineshwar Tiwary was not only in breach of the bank's circular, dated March 12, 1991 but it was also in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

(3.) ON a consideration of the entire materials produced before it, the Tribunal found and held that Dineshwar Tiwary had worked as temporary and causal Peon 'at least for 240 days in every year of his service, i.e. in the years 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.' The Tribunal consequently held that the action of the management in terminating his service was illegal and unjustified. The Tribunal, then proceeded to direct for his reinstatement and regularisation in service as a Class IV employee in the subordinate cadre w.e.f. December 31, 1992, i.e. the date of his retrenchment, with full back wages.