URMILA SHAH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In the writ appeal vide W.A. No.208 of 2008, the appellant Urmila Shah has challenged the impugned order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.298 of 2003 in dismissing the writ petition and thereby confirming the award dated 23.10.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Case No.12 of 2001.
I.D. Case No.12 of 2001
(2.) In pursuant to the provision under section 10(1)(d) read with section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter 'I.D. Act'), the appropriate Government referred the following dispute vide letter No.8096/L.E dated 07.06.2001 for a decision:
'Whether the termination of services of the workman Urmila Shah working as Accounts Assistant at Mahila Branch, Basanti Colony, Rourkela of the Bank by the Secretary, Sundargarh Dist. Central Coop. Bank Ltd, Sundargarh with effect from 28.07.2000 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the workman Urmila Shah is entitled?'
On the basis of such reference, I.D. Case No.12 of 2001 was initiated before the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela. The Secretary and Branch Manager of Sundargarh District Central Cooperative Bank (hereafter 'the Bank') were the 1st parties and appellant Urmila Shah was the 2nd party in the said proceeding. It is the case of the appellant- 2nd party that she was selected as Account Assistant and joined the Bank on 02.04.1997 and continued there as such till 27.07.2000 when her services from the Bank were terminated. The Bank employed her in the post without regularizing her service which continued till her retrenchment. The appellant used to work sincerely and diligently and to the full satisfaction of the authority. She discharged her duties which were assigned to her. In spite of giving her full remuneration as per banking rules, she was being paid Rs.80/- per day and without following the due procedure under section 25-F of the I.D. Act, her services were terminated. She prayed for reinstatement in the Bank, payment of her back wages with compensation and all other consequential service benefits.
It is the case of the 1st parties Bank that the services of the appellant were not under regular establishment and she was working as a casual worker on daily wage basis. She was not selected as per the Staff Service Rules of the Bank rather she was engaged by the Branch Manager of the Bank without following due procedure prescribed for recruitment of regular employees. It is the further case of the 1st party Bank that the Branch Manager appointed the appellant in the Bank in a concealed, clandestine and illegal manner for which there was a special audit in the Bank and the amount paid to the appellant was to be recovered from the concerned Branch Manager.
(3.) The learned Tribunal in I.D. Case No.12 of 2002 framed the following issues for determination:-
(i) Whether the 2nd party workman was in continuous employment for more than one year under the 1st party management?
(ii) Whether the termination of service of 2nd party workman by the 1st party management w.e.f. 28.07.2000 is legal and/or justified?
(iii) If not, to what relief the 2nd party is entitled?
(iv) Whether the reference is maintainable?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.