DEPUTY G M , S B I , SANJAY PALACE AGRA Vs. ANIRUDH KUMAR SHARMA
LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-60
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 10,2015

Deputy G M , S B I , Sanjay Palace Agra Appellant
VERSUS
Anirudh Kumar Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) LIST has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1.
(3.) THE petitioner -Bank is seeking quashing of the order dated 18.1.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in L.C.A. No. 131 of 2006 (Anirudh Kumar Sharma Vs. Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India). It is submitted by Shri Satish Chaturvedi that a dispute was raised by the respondent no. 1 which was adjudicated by the Labour Court through its award dated 12.4.1985 in I.D. No. 207 of 1983 and it was held that the termination of the services of the respondent no. 1 was not justified and he will be deemed to be in continuous service and entitled to full wages from 22.2.1974 till the date of his reappointment i.e. 4.4.1983. It is submitted by Shri Satish Chaturvedi that even before the award the respondent no. 1 had been reinstated in service. This is clear from the operative portion of the award itself. Subsequently the respondent no. 1 filed an application under section 33 -C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming certain benefits to be computed in terms of money. Copy of the application has been filed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition. Notices were issued to the petitioner on 4.9.2006 and on 8.9.2006 the petitioner put in appearance through its representative. Copy of the entire order sheet has been filed as Annexure -14 to the writ petition. It is submitted by Shri Satish Chaturvedi that the management had filed its documentary evidence on 27.11.2006, as would be clear from the order sheet of that date and 13.12.2006 was fixed for evidence but on 13.12.2006 merely because the management witnesses could not appear an inference was drawn by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner -management does not want to lead evidence and thereafter 3.1.2007 was fixed for the evidence of the workman and on that date the matter was finally heard and the order was reserved and thereafter the impugned order was passed on 18.1.2007.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.