- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by General Manager (Operations), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, against the award dated 06.12.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Industrial Dispute No. 63 of 1999 upon a reference made by the Central Government, Minstry of Labour, New Delhi, vide Notification No. L-12012/503/98-1R.(B-I) dated 22.03.1999, which reads as under:- " Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in terminating the services of Sri Rajeev Sharma w.e.f. 21.07.1987, peon, Ratanlal Nagar City Branch Kanpur and not giving him permanent employment as per the directions of Ministry of Finance Govt. of India is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
(2.) The aforesaid reference was at the behest of the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workman') who on 10.02.1998 raised an industrial dispute. The claim of the Workman was that he was appointed as a Peon on 02.05.1987 at Ratanlal Nagar City Branch at Kanpur of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ' Employer'). He worked in the aforesaid capacity till 20.07.1987. On 21.07.1987, without any prior notice or compensation, his service was unlawfully and unjustifiably terminated. The work and post on which he was appointed, was regular and permanent in nature. At the time of the termination of his service, persons junior to him, on the same class/category, were retained in service. Later, fresh appointments in the same category of posts were made by the employer. The Employer, therefore, adopted unfair labour practice, inasmuch as the service of the workman was terminated just after completion of 80 days of service, so that he could be deprived of the benefits of the regularisation, etc available to a workman who completes 90 days of service. The action of the employer in terminating the services of an old workman and thereafter appointing a new workman in his place amounted to violation of the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act, 1947'). Therefore, the Workman was entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages.
(3.) In response to the claim of the Workman, a written statement was filed on behalf of the Employer. In the written statement it was claimed that the dispute was a stale dispute and could not have been referred for adjudication after a lapse of more than 11 years. As per Bipartite Settlements, Sastri Award or Desai Award, the Employer was entitled to engage temporary workman on temporary nature of job even in case where a permanent workman had gone on leave or absented otherwise. By the circular of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, Govt. of India, one time opportunity for appointment was provided to the temporary employees who had worked with the Employer for at least 90 days in temporary capacity. The Employer had invited applications from temporary employees who had put in a minimum service of 90 days to be absorbed as permanent employees. Those temporary employees who had put in 90 days or more, and had applied, were considered. Since, the term of appointment of the Workman concerned had come to an end, no notice was required. As the termination of service of the Workman concerned was automatic, by virtue of the provisions of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, 1947, it did not amount to retrenchment, therefore, there was no occasion to follow the retrenchment proceedure. It was further submitted that as there was no retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25 -H of the I.D., Act, 1947 were not attracted. In paragraph 13 of the written statement, the statement of the Workman that juniors to him were retained in service, was specifically denied. With the aforesaid averments, the Employer claimed that the automatic termination of service by way of non-renewal and non-extension of his term of employment was legal and justified, and since the Workman was not eligible for being absorbed in the Bank, under the instructions of the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, therefore, the reference was liable to be answered in favour of the Employer and against the Workman.;