RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been directed by the petitioners against the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, KanpurNagar(respondentNo. 2) in I.D. No. 96/1991 published in Government of India Notification dated December2,1996 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(2.) It is disclosed from the record of the case that all the four petitioners were appointed on the post of Peon-cum-Waterboy in the respondent-Bank on temporary basis in the years 1972 and 1973 vide their respective appointment letters and worked till 1975. It is alleged that though they were appointed till June 29, 1979 and were empanelled in the selection list, but the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Agra (respondent No. 1) appointed outsiders on the post of Peon-cum-Waterboy whose names were not in the panel list in the years 1980, 1982 and 1992, The petitioners appear to have agitated the appointments of these outsiders and also made representations in this regard to the higher authorities of the respondent-Bank who assured the petitioners to take action but in vain.
(3.) It appears that the four petitioners along with four other workmen raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar for decision which was registered as I.D. No. 96 of 1991. The Tribunal/Labour Court by the impugned award dated November 15, 1996 has held: "10. As regards the cLalm of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Baboo Lal, I think that they made out a case. As mentioned earlier the name, of Baboo Lal appears at Serial No. 53 and that of Ashok Kumar at Serial N. 55. It has been alleged that Brahmanand at Serial No. 59 and P.K. Chaturvedi at Serial No. 63 have been given employment by making departure of principle of giving employment to the persons whose name appear earlier than those of these candidates. This fact has, not been specifically denied by the management in its written statement. Thus, under Order 8, Rule 5 C.P.C. it should be deemed to be admitted. Apart from this there is unrebutted affidavit of these two persons. Hence it is held that the management had committed breach of this wait list by giving employment to candidates appearing at Serial Nos. 59 and 63 after ignoring the cLalm of Ashok Kumar at Serial No. 55 and Baboo Lal at Serial No. 53. In this way there has been definite infringement of Article 14 of Constitution of India in providing employment. Consequently these two workmen will be entitled for employment. 11. Now the case of Ashok Kumar may be taken up. His case is that he was taken on November 26, 1984 as a sub-staff and worked upto August 28,1985 for a period of 234 days. Thereafter his services were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.............................. 14. Now the case of two clerks may be taken up. In the cLalm statement Anoop Kumar Mehrotra has alleged that the concerned workman had worked from June 15, 1972 to August 8, 1975 in broken period as temporary clerk. He was given assurance that he will be regularized. Instead of regularizing him fresh hands were taken in service and he was not given any opportunity. Thus there has been breach of Sections 25, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 75. The case of Rajendra Kumar is that he was given employment from June 16, 1972 to August 13, 1975 in broken period as temporary clerk by the opposite party. While effecting retrenchment there has been breach of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act.............................................. 19. Ashok Kumar Mehrotra and Rajendra Kumar have given their statements in this Tribunal in which they have stated the facts as given in the cLalm statement. The management was given opportunity but they have not given evidence in rebuttal. In this way the evidence of both these workmen is unrebutted. I see no reason to disbelieve it. Accordingly their version is believed. I am of the opinion that according to their own pleading they have not completed more man 240 days in a calendar year as such they are not entitled for benefit of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.............................................. 22. Finally my award is that concerned workman Ramesh Chandra Verma is not entitled for any relief for want of prosecution. Mahesh Chandra Verma and Prakash Chandra Gautam will also not be entitled for any relief as their case has not been proved. 23. Similarly Ashok Kumar Sharma and Baboo Lal will be entitled for employment. 24. A.K. Mehrotra and Rajendra Kumar will also be entitled for reinstatement in service with back wages at the rate at which they were drawing at the time their respective retrenchment from the date of reference.";