R. B. Misra, J. - (1.) -Heard Miss Rohma Hameed holding brief of Sri Yashwant Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. R. Gupta learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Sri Ajai Kumar Dwivedi.
(2.) IN this petition order dated 25.10.1997 passed by Central Government INdustrial Tribunal, Kanpur, in INdustrial Dispute Case No. 4 of 1991 has been challenged. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage in view of second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was deployed absolutely on casual basis for a limited period as a messenger from 30.7.1987 to 9.3.1988 by an order dated 31.7.1987 with the condition that such deployment was absolutely on temporary basis and could be ceased after the period of 13.2.1988. Such deployment was made on contractual basis for a limited period in the exigency of work and after coming to an end of the limited period the deployment on contractual basis in terms and conditions of appointment was not renewed. The petitioner had however, got the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short called 'Act' hereinafter) adjudicated before the Tribunal where the dispute of following effect was referred : "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of ex-messenger Ajai Kumar Dwivedi w.e.f. 10.3.1988 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner State Bank of India (in short called 'Bank' hereinafter) the respondent No. 2 had worked only for 223 days and has not completed 240 days even as a messenger. After his deployment some other person was kept on deployment which was admitted by the petitioner himself in his letter dated 5.8.1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and no person was ever subsequently deployed, therefore, there is no question of retrenchment and applying the principle of last come first go while not renewing the engagement of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, learned Tribunal in the award dated 25.10.1996 had considered all the aspects while adjudicating the issues before it had noticed that one Sri Rajesh Pandey subsequently deployed was not cross-examined but the petitioner being junior was retrenched. According to the petitioner when the respondent No. 2 has not even completed 240 days in a calendar year then the basic requirement of Section 25F of 'Act' i.e., "conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen" is not justified, therefore, testing the case in the award in respect of non-applicability of not following the procedure of retrenchment given in Section 25G of 'Act' cannot be tested.;