Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Avdhesh Kumar Singh and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been preferred against the Labour Court award which was allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000./-. The factual dispute in narrow compass, is summarised as under:
(2.) According to petitioner's Counsel, the petitioner was engaged as Peon on 1.7.1987 and he continued in service upto 1993. On 6.2.1993, the petitioner's services were dispensed with. The petitioner raised industrial dispute on the ground that he had worked for more than 240 days and his services were dispensed with without following the procedure contained in section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act or section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court by the impugned order dated 5.5.1994 decided the dispute and recorded a finding that the petitioner was recruited as Waterman. However, he has failed to prove that he has served for 240 days. The Presiding Officer further recorded a finding that the petitioner was entitled for payment of compensation to Rs. 10,000/-. It has been held by the Labour Court that in the Staffing Pattern of the Bank namely, the Central Bank of India, there is no sanctioned post of Waterman and the petitioner was engaged to meet out the exigencies of service for short period. Hence he was not entitled for protection of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has relied upon a letter dated 20.8.1992 sent by the Manager of the Bank to the Regional Manager. It is the main evidence on which the Labour Court has relied upon while recording a finding that the petitioner was engaged as Waterman. A perusal of the letter dated 20.8.1992 indicates that the Branch Manager has informed the Regional Manager that the petitioner worked for more than 390 days on the post of Waterman and was paid an amount of Rs. 5286/-. However, the finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that since the petitioner has failed to prove the actual number of days for which he discharged duties, the retrenchment cannot be held to be in breach of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act.;