Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The judgment was passed on 13.1.2006. The respondent has moved a recall application saying that his name was not printed in the cause list and therefore he could not attend the matter. I have allowed his recall application and also hearing both the parties now.
(2.) The recall application was moved on 8.2.06 stating the reasons why the learned Counsel for the respondent could not attend to the matter. In view of the averments made in the said recall application, I am again allowing the recall application and today also hearing both counsel for the parties.
(3.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner bank against an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 17.9.1085 in industrial dispute No. 238 of 1983. The order of reference is quoted herein below. :Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in relation to their Kunda Branch (Pratapgarh District) in erminating the services of Shri Amar Kumar Pande Guard with effect from 12.1.1983, is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?;