- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Petitioner was appointed as Mini Deposit Collector with Punjab National Bank in its branch office at Dammal Kanpur by its Regional Manager on 20-4-1977. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 31-12-1978 without any notice or charge-sheet. Petitioner was also not paid the retrenchment compensation as required by Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner raised a belated Industrial Dispute. Reference was made by the Government on 29-7-1982. Number of the said reference was L-12012/286/81-D II (A ). From the number of the referring order, it appears that Government was approached for making reference in the year 1981. Reference was registered before Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Kanpur as Industrial Dispute No. 53 of 1983. The Tribunal gave the award on 30-9-1985, which has been challenged through this writ petition.
(2.) TRIBUNAL held that petitioner was not workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act hence no procedure was required to be followed before terminating his services and he could not raise the Industrial Dispute. Learned Counsel for both the parties have placed reliance upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported in Indian Bank Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank, 2001 (2) LBESR 564 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 946. In the said authority, it has been held that deposit Collectors employed by Banks are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act (para 24) and that commission received by deposit collectors is nothing else but wage in accordance with Section 2 (rr) of the Act (Para 25 ). However, Supreme Court held that Deposit Collectors employed by Banks could not be directed to be treated as regular workmen and they could also not be paid same pay scales which were being paid to regular employees. In view of the above Supreme Court authority, the view of the tribunal that the petitioner being Mini Deposit Collector was not workman under Section 2 (s) of the Act is not correct.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY neither petitioner was terminated on the basis of any misconduct after providing opportunity of hearing nor notice and compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the Act was given to the petitioner hence his termination was illegal. However, after 28 years it is not at all advisable to reinstate the petitioner. At the time of termination of petitioner's services legal position was not very clear regarding status of Mini Deposit Collectors of Bank. Dispute was also raised by the petitioner after about 3 years. In the writ petition filed 20 years before petitioner's age was shown to be of 38 years hence now he must be of 58 years of age. Recently Supreme in various authorities has held that even if termination is found to be illegal still it is not necessary in every case to direct reinstatement vide: (1) Haryana SEDC v. Mamni, 2006 (3) LBESR 151 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 2427. (2) M. P. State Agro Industrial Development Corporation v. S. C. Pandey, 2006 (2) SCC 716. (3) Dhampur Sugar Mills v. Bhola Singh, 2005 (1) LBESR 928 (SC) : 2005 (2) SCC 470. (4) U. P. State Brassware Corporation v. U. N. Pandey, 2006 (1) LBESR 348 (SC) : 2006 (1) SCC 479. In the first authority of Mamni even though termination was found to be illegal still in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages only lump sum compensation of Rs. 25000/- was awarded.;