ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Prem Prakash Sharma aggrieved by the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur dated 3rd March, 1998 passed in Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 1997, Annexure -'16' to the writ petition, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE following reference was made to the respondent No. 1/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication : Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Agra to discriminate Sri Prem Prakash Sharma workman by not calling him for test for absorption against permanent vacancies in subordinate cadre is legal and justified. If not, to what relief he is entitled? The respondent No. 1 on receipt of the reference issued notices to the petitioner as well as employer. Both the parties have exchanged pleadings and adduced evidence. The employers have taken up the case that the claim of the workman -petitioner has become stale and secondly that he has worked only for 142 days between the period 18th June, 1984 and 10th November, 1984. The allegation that there is any breach of Section 25 -F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise, as the petitioner cannot be said to be covered by definition of 'Workman' as he has not put in even 240 days continuous working. The petitioner has denied the above stand of employer. The labour Court has come to the conclusion that the termination has taken place in the year 1984 as is evident from the narration of the fact wherein reference has been made in January, 1997 after a lapse of more than 12 years and thus, in the opinion of the labour Court, the claim of the petitioner has become stale and, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case reported in 2001(2) LBESR 798 (SC) : 2001 (90) FLR 754, Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, the view taken by labour Court cannot be said to be suffered with any error of law. The labour Court has further found on merits that the workman has not given the names of those persons who were juniors to the workman have been retained in service. Further, since the workman has not put in continuous service of 240 days, his dispute was not liable to be referred to the labour Court in exercise of power under the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity with the finding recorded by the labour Court which are the finding of fact and it is settled that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the view taken by labour Court. Therefore, the same do not warrant any interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;