AXIS BANK Vs. MURLIDHANR TIWARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case was taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length on various dates, lastly on 29/9/2020 and Judgment was reserved and the same is being pronounced today. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally. PRAYER

(2.) Petitioner-Management has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dtd. 12/2/2011, passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in J.S.E. Case No. 1/2010, whereby and whereunder the complaint preferred by the respondent under Sec. 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 read with Rule 21 of Jharkhand Shops and Establishment Rule, 2001 has been allowed and has further ordered for continuation of service of the respondent with full back wages. FACTUAL MATRIX

(3.) The factual exposition as has been stated in the writ petition is that in order to avail security of the Bank, an agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner-Management and the service provider Company namely Tiger Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, on and from 2/6/2008, one Murlidhar Tiwary (respondent) was employed as a Gun Man to provide security to the premises of the concerned Bank with the terms of contract mentioned in the agreement. The said Gun Man (respondent) was to be paid salary etc. by the concerned Security Agency and he was under his direct control and supervision. Said Gun Man (respondent) was transferred to Jamshedpur with effect from 1/10/2009 with a direction to report for duties by 5/10/2009, which was duly acknowledged by him. However, instead of joining at his transferred place of posting, the respondent made a representation before the Manager of the concerned security agency seeking apology of his mistakes. Further, on 26/10/2009, the respondent made a complaint before the Labour Enforcement Officer. Upon filing of such complaint, notice was served upon the concerned security agency with a copy to the petitioner-Management. The said notice was duly replied by the security agency denying the charges leveled against them and it was clearly mentioned therein that the concerned Gun Man did not comply their order nor did he join at the transferred place of posting. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a complain under Sec. 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 read with Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Shops and Establishment Rules, 2001 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad vide J.S.E. Case No. 1/2010. Upon receipt of notice, the concerned security agency filed its show-cause/ written statements again denying the charges leveled against them and further prayed that on the ground of same being time barred, the same is fit to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and further ordered for continuation of service of the respondent with full back wages. However, the petitioner-Management came to know about the said order only after receipt of legal notice sent by the respondent on 3/3/2011 through his lawyer. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner-Management has knocked door of this Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-MANAGEMENT