ZONAL MANAGER UCO BANK Vs. RAM PRAKASH PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal appellant UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') has challenged order of the learned single Judge dated May 8, 2006 dismissing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 259/2001 filed by the Management challenging Award dated December 27, 1999 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the respondent Ram Prakash Prajapati (hereinafter referred to as 'the Workman') has been ordered to be reinstated with full back wages.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as per the Management are that the Workman was engaged as part time casual worker at the rate of Rs. 12/- per day on June 6, 1986 for 1 hour and a half in the evening. However, the Workman filed the statement of claim before the Tribunal claiming himself to be full time daily rated worker. The services of the Workman were dispensed with on March 18, 1988 after following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Against the said termination order, a dispute was referred to the Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed Award on March 30, 1992 holding that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and therefore, held the Workman entitled to reinstatement with back wages. In compliance to the aforesaid Award, the Workman joined duty on June 18, 1992. However, on the very same day, again retrenchment order was passed and services of the Workman were dispensed with after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act by giving Rs. 1260/- as notice pay and compensation. The matter was again referred by the appropriate government to the Tribunal and again, vide Award dated December 27, 1999 it was held by the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had not been followed while calculating wages of the Workman and consequently compensation fell short. Therefore, the Workman was held entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. However, liberty was given by the Tribunal to the Management to dispense with the services of the Workman after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

(3.) The aforesaid Award dated December 27, 1999 was challenged by the Management by filing S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 259/2001 on the ground that the Workman was a part time worker and due compliance of worker and due compliance of the provisions of the Act was made. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on May 8, 2006 holding that the Tribunal on the basis of evidence and material on record rightly came to the conclusion and recorded a finding that there had been clear violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The Management has preferred the present special appeal against the Award dated December 27, 1999 passed by the Tribunal, as affirmed by order dated May 8, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge.