ANJANI KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur (in short 'Tribunal') dated 19th April, 1985 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in I.D. Case Nos. 85 of 1983 and 88 of 1983, copy whereof has been annexed Annexure -'C' to the writ petition.
(2.) THE following disputes were referred to the 'Tribunal' by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour for adjudication vide orders dated 19th December, 1982 and 26th March, 1982, which are reproduced below: In the case of I.D. No. 85/1983 : Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Kanpur, in not absorbing Shri Ayodhya Prasad, Sub -Staff in the bank's services and terminating his services from 1976 is justified? If not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled? In the case of I.D. No. 88/1983: Whether the action of management of Central Bank of India, Kanpur in not absorbing S/Shri Om Narain Mishra, Girish Dutt Shukla, Udai Narain Mishra, Ashok Kumar Pande and Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, in bank's services and terminating their services from 1976 is justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled? The 'Tribunal' vide its award impugned in the present writ petition has answered the references after having come to the conclusion in the following terms I hold that the action of the bank management of Central Bank of India in not absorbing Shri Ayodhya Prasad of I.D. No. 85 of 1983 sub -staff in the bank services and terminating his services from 1976 is not justified. The result is that the applicant/workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. Similarly, in other I.D. No. 88 of 1983, the 'Tribunal' has held I hold that the action of the management of Central Bank of India in not absorbing the workmen, namely, S/Shri Om Narain Mishra, Girish Dutt Shukla, Udai Narain Mishra, Ashok Kumar Pande and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, in bank services and terminating their services from 1976 are not justified. The result is that the applicants/workmen are entitled to be re -instated with full back wages.
(3.) PURSUANCE to the issuance of the notice, the workmen as well as the employer have exchanged their written statements and rejoinder affidavits. The 'Tribunal' after permitting the parties to adduce such evidence, which they want to adduce, has examined the pleadings and evidences aforesaid and found that in view of the circular issued by the Bank himself, the action of the bank in not permitting these workmen to complete their 240 days of services, whereas the persons who were appointed subsequent to these workmen, were allowed to work for 240 days and thus, not absorbing these workmen on regular side and terminating their services with effect from the year 1976 is malafide on the part of the Bank management and amounts to unfair labour practice.;