Vatindra Singh, J. - (1.) The State Bank of India has a branch in the Lauris Hotel, Agra (the Bank for short). There, was a canteen, which was run by a contractor. Sri Govind Saran Verma (the contesting respondent) was working with the contractor as a cook. The Bank thought fit to take over the canteen and this was done on 23.5.78. The State Bank continued all employees working with the contractor on a temporary basis as an interim measure. The contesting respondent was one of them. According to the Bank, the contesting respondent did not come for duty after 15.7.78 and when he did not come till 31.7.78. his name was struck off. Initially one Sri O. P. Verma was appointed on temporary basis. The regular selection was also held in which different persons Including the contesting respondent appeared, but he was not selected.
(2.) The contesting respondent raised an Industrial, dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. The contesting respondent took contradictory stand before the Labour Court about his absence. On the one hand, the stand was that he was ill and he had submitted an application along with a medical certificate. On the other hand, he approached the Bank on 16.7.78 and the Bank did not permit him to work. The Labour Court has not decided as to which version is correct : whether the contesting respondent did not come for work ; or he went for work but was not given any ; or if he was ill. The Labour Court has held that : (1) the name of the contesting respondent was struck off on 1st August 1978 ; (2) the contesting respondent had worked for 54 days and was not entitled for retrenchment compensation ; (3) Striking off the name of the contesting respondent is Illegal, as 14 days notice under para 522.4 of the Shastri Award was not given. In view of this finding, the Labour Court has reinstated the contesting respondent with back wages. Hence the present writ petition by the Bank. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(3.) I have heard Sri S. N. Verma for the petitioners and Sri Sharad Sharma for the contesting respondent. The following points arise for determination : (i) What was the nature of the employment of the contesting respondent? is he covered by the Shastri Award? ii) Para 522.4 of the Shastri Award permits either side to terminate the contract of service after giving 14 days of notice? is the requirement of para 522.4 of the Shastri Award a condition precedent? What is the effect of not following it? Does it render the termination invalid? (iii) The contesting respondent was a temporary hand. He had worked for 54 days. What amount of back wages is he entitled to? 1st Point: NATURE OF THE EMPLOYMENT;