- (1.) An interesting and important question of law, that has been canvassed in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether the reinstatement of workmen without a specific order for the payment of back wages would necessarily mean rejection of the claim for such wages. To understand the background in which the controversy has come to be raised it is necessary to narrate certain facts.
(2.) Twenty six workmen, including the respondent nos.1 to 23 were employed by the petitioner-bank between 4th May, 1961 and November 1962. The services of all the 26 employees were terminated on 16.08.69 An industrial dispute was raised and the Central Government by its notification dated 21.06.1985 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Kanpur. "WHETHER the action of State Bank of India in relation to their Gorakhpur Branch in terminating the services of Sri Ram Chandra Dubey and 25 others employees of the Bank, (as mentioned in Annexure) is justified ? if not, to what relief are the work ment concerned entitled?"
(3.) A reference came to be registered as Industrial Dispute no. 255 of 1985 Both the parties canvassed their point of view before the tribunal. An award dated 4.2.1987 , a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition was made After elaborate discussion of the fa----- the rival contentions of the parties, it was concluded: - "19 That in any view of the matter the services of the workment could not have been terminated, Consequently I hold that the action of the management of State Bank Of India relation to their Gorakhpur Branch in Terminating the services of Sri Ram Chandra Dubey and 25 other employees of the Bank as mentioned in the Annexure is not justified. 20. The result is that all the workmen mentioned in the Annexure to the reference order are entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 16.08.69";