BHARATI SAPRU, J. - (1.) I have heard Sri Manoj Mishra learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.S. Sengar learned Counsel for the respondent workman.
(2.) THE present petition has been filed against an award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court dated 2.12.1997 passed in Industrial Dispute No. 50 of 1995 by which the Tribunal has held that the termination of the workman concerned is in breach of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and has reinstated the workman. The order of reference is whether the termination of the services of Sri Suresh Kumar Sonkar, casual workman with effect from 23.7.1993 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to?
(3.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent workman claims that he was working as casual employee with the petitioner bank and worked beyond the period of 240 days and was wrongly terminated in breach of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner bank on the other hand submitted that the respondent workman was engaged on temporary basis as water boy. As he was engaged as daily rated workman in the petitioner bank and did not work continuously, he could not be absorbed in the services of petitioner bank through a back door entry as the bank has a complete procedure for appointing a person on regular basis.;