LAWS(BOM)-2005-7-70

DENA BANK Vs. VENU GOPAL NAIK

Decided On July 15, 2005
DENA BANK Appellant
V/S
VENU GOPAL NAIK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned award dated 5th June, 2003, the Central Government industrial Tribunal No. 1, Mumbai has directed the petitioner bank to reinstate the respondent workman and absorb him permanently as a regular sepoy or its equivalent post with 50% back wages from 15th August, 1993. The grievance of the petitioner bank is that the respondent who had worked on daily wage basis for 93 days in a leave vacancy during the period from April, 1993 to August, 1993 is neither entitled for reinstatement nor entitled for absorption as a permanent employee of the bank.

(2.) The facts relevant for the present petition are that the petitioner is a Banking company constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 having branches all over India. During the period from April, 1993 to August, 1993 the respondent was engaged as a 'badli sepoy' on daily wages by the manager of the Santa Cruz (E) branch of the petitioner Bank. The respondent was paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day. It is not in dispute that the respondent had, worked in all for 93 days in the bank as badli sepoy during the aforesaid period. The respondent was orally informed that his services shall stand discontinued from 15-08-1993. It appears that the respondent wrote several letters to the bank seeking regularisation of his services on the basis of his 93 days of daily wages service, but the same was declined by the bank.

(3.) Thereupon, the respondent raised an industrial dispute and the Central government being the appropriate authority made a reference to the Central Government industrial Tribunal No. 1 as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of the reference were:- " Whether the action of the management of dena Bank in not continuing Mr. Venugopal narayan Nair in the employment of the bank w. e. f. 15-08-1993 and in not absorbing him in the regular vacancy of Sepoy is legal and justified If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to -