ARUN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk -cum Godown keeper under Punjab National Bank, the respondent No. 2, in 1971, on a temporary basis and worked from time to time, with many breaks in service. He was in employment in the month of June, 1973 when his services were terminated with effect from 23.6.73 without payment of retrenchment compensation or wages in lieu of notice. He pressed his claim for continuity of service which was not accepted and an attempt for conciliation also failed. Ultimately, a reference was made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for deciding whether the action of the Bank in terminating the petitioner's services was justified and to what relief, if any, the petitioner was entitled to.

(2.) The Management in its written statement stated that in terms of the settlement entered into between the Bank and All India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation on 13.7.82 it was essential for a temporary hand to pass a written test before he could be absorbed on a permanent basis. The petitioner, accordingly, appeared at the written test but failed. In these circumstances, his services were validly and justifiably terminated.

(3.) The petitioner had also claimed a permanent status in the service on the basis of certain averments which need not be detailed here. The Bank denied the claim and asserted that the petitioner was not entitled to continue, in service. The first issue framed for decision of the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be treated as a permanent hand was answered by the Tribunal against the petitioner which was not challenged before me at the time of hearing of the case. The other point which was agitated before the Tribunal Was in regard to the legality of the order of termination in absence of compliance with the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act. The Tribunal held that the termination of the petitioner's service did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of the expression in Sec. 2(00) of the Act and the petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to any relief. This finding has been strenuously challenged by Mr. Mukherjee.