S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) FIRST writ petition has been filed by the employer against award dated 1.4.1997 given by Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 76 of 1995. The matter, which was referred to the Tribunal by the Central Government was to the following effect: Whether the action of the Management of Central Bank of India, Ballia/Varanasi in not regularising and terminating the services of Shri Babban Gupta -casual workman w.e.f. 22.6.1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled? The case of workman Babban Gupta -respondent No. 2 in the first writ petition was that he was engaged on 29.3.1991 as sub -staff and he worked till 26.6.1992 and was paid wages @ Rs. 25 per day and as he had completed more than 240 days, hence his retrenchment without payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation was bad under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal merely on the basis that concerned workman had worked 325 days held that his termination was bad for non -payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. Tribunal further held that there was no evidence to prove the breach of Sections 25G and H of Industrial Disputes Act. In Para 7, Tribunal categorically held that: The concerned workman is also not entitled for regularisation as he has worked for small period and there is no evidence that any post is available as regularisation can be made against existing alone.
(3.) ULTIMATELY . Tribunal held that termination was bad in law and workman was entitled for reinstatement with back -wages but not for regularisation.;