V.C.MISRA, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties are present.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 13 -3 -1986 made in favour of respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 the Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the termination of service of the workman -respondent No. 1 dated 14 -6 -1982 was declared as an illegal and not justified, reinstating the workman with full back wages. The undisputed facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner -bank at its Kirwali Branch, Agra has engaged respondent No. 1 -Sri Dayal Singh from time to time as a Badli Guard w.e.f. 14 -5 -1980, and he had worked continuously till 14 -6 -1982, for the specific total 254 days in 2 years, as mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The services of respondent No. 1 were dispensed with w.e.f. 14 -6 -1982 and he was not engaged any further, since his services were not required anymore. Being aggrieved, respondent No. 1 raised an Industrial Dispute, which was referred to respondent No. 2.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties to the dispute, found that the workman had acquired the status of a temporary employee and his services could not be terminated and he should have been given 14 days notice or pay in lieu of notice as required under para 522 (4) of the Sastri Award. From the evidence on record it appeared that the workman did not work for 240 days in span of one year so he could not be entitled to retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25 -F but he was entitled to pay in lieu of notice and termination was void on that count and also since his claim for reappointment was ignored while appointing others the provisions of Section 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were violated. It was further held that the workman having acquired temporary status having worked for 254 days from June, 1980 to June 1982 was entitled to notice or, pay in lieu of notice and re -employment and for violation of the above said provisions i.e. 522 (4) of Sastri Award, Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute Rules, (Central), 25 -D of the Industrial Dispute Act as well as 25 -H of the Act, the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages as the termination of the workman was illegal and void ab initio on the above counts and that the action of the management of SBI in relation to its Kirawali Branch under control of the Regional Manager -I, Agra in terminating the service of workman was not justified w.e.f. 14 -6 -1982. As regards permanent absorption of the workman, workman could not be employed permanently unless it was specifically proved that the post on which workman was engaged was a permanent post and this could not have been proved in the instant case, hence he could be absorbed permanently. Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the said findings, held the termination of the services of respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 14 -6 -1982 to be illegal and unjustified and directed his reinstatement with full back wages.;