TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal reinstating the respondent No. 2 with full back wages and with all consequential benefits attached with the post. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that a dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The terms of the reference order was: "Whether any employer-employee relationship existed between the UCO Bank and Sri Rajesh Kumar Diwakar? If yes, whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the said workman w.e.f. June 1, 2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled for?"
(2.) The workman in his written statement submitted that he was appointed by the bank on December 7, 1999 in its Armapore branch, Kanpur on the post of Driver on a consolidated wages @ 1800/- per month. The bank also provided a dress to the workman and was also given travelling allowance, dearness allowance, etc. It was alleged that the workman was appointed on a temporary basis against a regular and permanent post of driver and worked without any break in service upto May 31, 2001, and thereafter, his services were dispensed with by an oral order w.e.f. June 1, 2001 without giving any show cause notice or charge sheet and without any reasonable cause. The workman contended that his work and conduct was satisfactory and that there was no complaint against him. The workman further contended that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and therefore, his services could not be dispensed with without complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the provision of Section 25-F of the Act was not complied with by the employers, the termination of the services of the workman was wholly illegal and that he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and, with full back wages.
(3.) The petitioners denied the claim of the workman and contested the matter alleging that the workman was never appointed by the bank and that there was no master and servant relationship between the parties, and therefore, the question of terminating the service of the workman did not arise. The petitioners further submitted that the workman was appointed as a personal driver of the then Senior Manager, Sri U.S. Wahi, who was working in the bank's branch at Kanpur and that the salary to the workman was also paid by the Senior Manager. It was contended that the Senior Manager had never appointed the workman to work as the Cash Van driver on a temporary basis. The Senior Manager was in any case was not competent to appoint the workman either on a temporary basis or on a regular basis in the services of the Bank. It was contended that the Senior Manager, Sri U.S. Wahi retired from the service of the bank on May 31, 2001 and consequently he disengaged the services of the workman w.e.f. June 1, 2001. The petitioners contended that since the workman was never an employee of the bank, the question of complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Act did not arise.;