- (1.) THROUGH the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the award dated January 17, 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, central Government Industrial Tribunal, kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 188 /1989, whereby the claim of the opposite party No. 2 has been allowed and the concerned workman has been directed to be reinstated in service. The petitioner has challenged the same, inter alia, on the ground that the workman having been engaged on casual basis at different intervals does not get any right for absorption on regular basis and the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in recording the contrary finding because a direction issued by the tribunal is contrary to the spirit of Recruitment rules.
(2.) BRIEFLY relevant facts of the case are that one Ayaz Ahmad was engaged by the petitioner on August 16, 1985 as a casual labour on daily wage basis. His services as casual labour were utilized by the Bank at its Rastamau Branch of lucknow region. According to the petitioner, the nature of work performed by the said workman was only casual as he was serving water etc. to the staff and the customers and he was engaged at different intervals without any appointment letter. Since his services were not required in the office, he was disengaged with effect from November 5, 1986. The opposite party No. 2 challenged the same before the tribunal on the ground that his services were terminated in breach of Section 25 of the industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as well as also in violation of several terms and conditions of Bipartite settlement. It was also submitted that neither any notice nor any retrenchment compensation was given to the workman and further juniors to him were retained in service, while his services have been terminated.
(3.) THE petitioner submitted written statement before the Tribunal, through which it has been submitted that the workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, there was no question of violation of section 25-F of the Act. The question was also raised before the Tribunal that the workman was over qualified for the job of peon. The validity of reference was challenged before the tribunal, which was negated. The question before the Tribunal for consideration was as to how many days the workman had actually worked in the bank as Peon. The Management of the bank had filed a list dated July 1, 1991 mentioning therein that the concerned workman worked for 204 days from November, 1985 upto November, 1986. However, on behalf of the workman an authorized representative submitted that in this national holidays and Sundays have not been included. The manager of the bank conceded this fact.;