ARAVALI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK SAWAI MADHOPUR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank (here-in-after referred to as the Bank) is challenging the award dated January 10, 1994 (Annexure-10) of the Central Industrial Tribunal in respect of respondent No. 3, Ramesh Chand Gupta. A reference was made to the Tribunal to adjudicate on the terms whether the action of the management of Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sawal Madhopur in not considering Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, daily wages workman for reemployment under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while engaging fresh hands is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

(2.) The respondent No. 3 (here-in-after referred to as the workman) was initially appointed on October 6, 1986 as a messenger on daily wages. He was removed from service on February 22, 1987 without any notice or any retrenchment compensation. The grievance was made by the workman that his junior was still working and, therefore, there is violation of Section 25-G. Another point raised by the Workman was that there was violation of Rules 77 and 78 of the Rules. It was the case of the respondent that the workman was employed as part time worker only and he was not being paid on monthly basis. No appointment letter was issued to him and the workman of daily wager does not come under the definition of retrenchment. Section 25-G or 25-H was not applicable as per the petitioner, It was further pleaded that the respondent had left coming to the bank of his own w. e.f. February 22, 1987. As per the case of the petitioner and evidence produced it was admitted that as per seniority list Annexure-4 there were 67 workers who were kept as part time workers on daily wages. It was not denied that subsequent to the termination of service of workman Ramesh Chand Gupta in the bank branch of Batoda, daily wagers such as Ram Khilari Meena, Hari Singh, Prithviraj, Sitaram and Chiranjilal were appointed. The Industrial Tribunal had held that the workman was appointed in Batoda branch on October 6, 1986. He was removed on January 21, 1987 vide Order Annexure W-1 and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the workman had left coming of his own was not accepted. Ram Khilari Meena, Hari Singh, Prithviraj, Sitaram were given appointment as daily wagers in February 1987, March 1987, April 1987, August 1987 and November 1987 as mentioned by the Industrial Tribunal in para 7 of its award. The Tribunal had answered the reference in affirmative that not considering the name of the workman for re- employment under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act was not justified and the relief had been given to the workman to the effect that the workman would be entitled to be taken back in service on February 7, 1989 when he had raised the demand with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The only point involved in the present case is as to what is the effect of the I non-compliance of Section 25-H r/w Rule 77 of the Rules.