Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) The petitioner-Devi Patan Kshetriya Gramin Bank is a regional rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 (Act No. 21 of 1976). It started functioning in Gonda w.e.f. October 1981 to cater the financial need of self employed persons engaged in small-scale business activities and to develop rural economy.
(2.) Sri Hemendra Kumar Singh, respondent No. 3 was appointed w.e.f. 14.10.1981 as Cashier-cum-Clerk at Gonda on ad-hoc basis for a specified period of 30 days. The term of appointment was extended from time to time and he worked w.e.f. 14.10.1981 to 17.6.1982 vide appointment orders issued from time to time. His services are said to have been orally terminated w.e.f. 17.6.1982 and he was never engaged thereafter. The petitioner appeared in the competitive test and interview conducted by the Banking Recruitment Board thereafter, but could not succeed. An industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 3 which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur where it was registered as I.D. Case No. 133/87.
(3.) The petitioner's case before the Tribunal was that Sri Hemendra Kumar Singh is not the workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was also not entitled to benefits of sections 25-F and 25-0 of the Act as he had not continuously worked for 240 or more days in a calendar year as mandated by section 25-B of the Act. The Tribunal by the impugned award held that the termination of services of the workman concerned is illegal and unjustified and granted relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages to him subject to his furnishing an affidavit to the effect that he was out of employment of the management till the date of his reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no finding in the award that the workman had actually worked for 240 days of continuous service and has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Union Bank of India Kanpur v. Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and others, 2005 (2) UPLBEC 1782 , and Dinesh Prasad v. Inspector General Registration, U.P. Allahabad and another, 2004 (1) UPLBEC 43 as well as upon decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (93) FLR 179 (SC) , Essen Deinki (M/s.) v. Rajiv Kumar,2002 (95) FLR 949 (SC) and Manager RBI, Bangalore v. S. Mani and others, 2005 (105) FLR 1067 (SC) wherein it has been held that burden of proof to establish that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year lies on the workman. Counsel for the respondents supported the award and vehemently urged that the award being just, legal and proper, need not be interfered in the writ jurisdiction as termination of services was against Rule 10.2 (A) (ii) of Bank's Staff Service Regulations, 1981 as well as in violation of section 25-F of the Act read with Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957.;