ALLAHABAD BANK BANDA Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT KANPUR
LAWS(ALL)-1997-12-77
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 05,1997

ALLAHABAD BANK, BANDA Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) This writ petition involves a short question whether a joint reference with respect to termination/retrenchment of several employees can be subject-matter of adjudication by the Labour Court when the employees are working in different branches though their employer is one and the same. The reference in question as referred in Annexure-C.A. 1 is as under : "Whether the action of the Management of Allahabad Bank in terminating the services of S/Sri Swami Din, Jeevan Chander, Udai Kumar. Chander Shekhar Dwivedi, Ram Manohar, Shahu Ram, Shankar Lal, Namdeo, Devldin, Bala Prasad, Surendra Kumar, Guiab Chander, Hari Kishan, Kalpanath Ram, Ram Lakhan, Harish Chandra Yadav, Narendra Narain Mishra, Sunder Lal, Ram Naresh, Daya Ram, Ramayan Rai, Ram Shanker Ram, Htaph Khan, Ram Pati Ram, Devanand Ram, Khem Chand, Nand Kishore, Hari Charan, Rajendra Pratap Mishra from the services of the Bank and not considering them for further employment while recruiting fresh hands under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned are entitled to?"
(2.) The Labour Court vide its order dated 1.9.88 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) negatived the plea of objectors regarding maintainability of the joint reference before it and rejected the objection holding that the Joint reference is maintainable. The Labour Court was of the view that the position would have been different if some of the workmen had claimed to have worked in different cadre and the management in respect of some of them had been different. It Is this order of Labour Court dated 1.9.1988 which has been made subject-matter of the writ petition before this Court.
(3.) This Court vide its order dated 4.10.1988 stayed operation of aforesaid order dated 1.9.88 of Labour Court. The stay vacation application came up for orders before me. Since the affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. learned counsel for both sides suggested to which I agreed to dispose of the writ petition itself on merits. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.