STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) through its Personal Manager challenging an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 158 of 1986. The said award is dated December 9, 1988. By the said award respondent workman Shiv Shankar Tiwary has been reinstated in service with back wages and other benefits available to him from May 1,1984.

(2.) The reference which was sent for adjudication before the said Tribunal is as follows: "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri Shiv Shankar Tiwary, Cashier, Bihta Branch with effect from May 1,1984 is justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" The notice of termination dated May 1,1984 which was issued by the said bank and as a result of which respondent No. 3 was dismissed has also been quoted in the said award. The contents of the said notice is set out below:

(3.) In the award all the material facts which were relevant for adjudication have been set out and noted. It also appears from the facts noted in the said award that against the said notice initially a writ petition was filed by respondent No. 3 before this Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1963 of 1984 but this Court refused to interfere with the said writ petition and dismissed the same with an observation that the workman concerned may seek remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated April 24,1984. Thereafter the Industrial Tribunal was approached on the basis of the reference set out above. As noted above, in the said award the material facts have been set out and discussed and after setting out the relevant facts, the .Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal came to the findings that it was necessary for the concerned workman to qualify in the test for being regularised or made permanent in the Bank s services. However, after reaching the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer while dealing with the reasons contained in the notice of termination came to the conclusion that the plea of Respondent No. 3 that he was unable to appear in the test held on October 30,1982 by the said Bank is a justified plea. In coming to the said conclusion, the findings reached by the said Tribunal are set out below: