DILIP KUMAR SHARMA Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 07.07.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'CGIT'). By the impugned award the CGIT has answered the reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act '). The reference was as under:

(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the CGIT has committed mistake while passing the award not directing the reinstatement of petitioner in service, but awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. The petitioner, therefore, is claiming that the said award be modified to the extant that in stead of granting him compensation, direction be issued to the respondent to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has also claimed a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as during termination he was not engaged in any other service. The petitioner has relied upon the decisions reported in (1979) 2 SCC 80 - Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. And others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 - Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed .) and others, (2014) 4 SCR 875 - Tapas Kumar Paul vs. BSNL , 2017 (4) MPLJ 141 - Shamim Bano Vs. Manager, WP No. 6502/2010 - Bhajanlal vs. Conservator of Forest and others, (1993) MPLJ 133 - Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of M.P. and others and (2019) 4 SCC 307 - Deputy Executive Engineer vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai .

(3.) The respondent Bank has submitted that the petitioner was only a daily wager. He failed to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days, he was not engaged against any vacant post and being a casual worker he was assigned the duties as per exigency. The violation of Section 25-F , G, H of the ID Act is also denied by the respondent-Bank. It is also submitted by the respondent that the Government of India, Financial Department and Reserve Bank of India have imposed a complete ban on recruitment of staff. The respondent- Bank is, therefore, authorized to curtail the staff for avoiding the loss and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to stop the work. The respondent has also submitted that they have also filed a petition challenging the award whereby the compensation has been awarded to the petitioner and further submitted that even the petitioner was not entitled to get any compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.