SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI,J. - (1.) The Award under challenge in this writ petition has been passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum -Labour Court (the Tribunal, for short), Asansol, in Reference No. 48 of 2004.
(2.) The case of the petitioner inter alia is that he was engaged as a peon in the Syndicate Bank, (Asansol Branch) under the Branch Manager, i.e., the respondent no. 2. His duties included taking out of ledger books, registers, cleaning of tables, sprinkling of water on the khus khus, serving water to the staff of the bank, so on and so forth. On July 1, 1993, the respondent no. 3 terminated the petitioner from service. During his tenure of service the respondent no. 2 made payment of his remuneration by voucher for a few days of a month and payment for the remaining portion of the month was given to him in hand. This was done, he alleges, to prove that he was engaged for a few days of a month only and it was also noted in the vouchers that the engagement was for sprinkling water in khus khus. After the rejection of the petitioner's application by the Assistant Labour Commission (Central) for starting a conciliation proceeding, he made an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, to treat the dispute as an industrial one. Ultimately, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal.
(3.) The respondent nos. 1 to 3 opposed this application by filing an affidavit -in -opposition. Apart from questioning the maintainability of writ petition on various grounds the answering respondents stated that in order to give comfort to the employees and the customers in general visiting the Asansol Branch of the concerned bank, the bank had put khus khus in the windows and doors of the branch premises. The petitioner was engaged in sprinkling water on them for the years 1991 to 1993 for the summer seasons only as a casual labour with the wage at the rate of Rs. 16/ - per day on no work no pay basis. When the heat of the summer receded his assignment for sprinkling water on khus khus was automatically withdrawn. No letter of appointment was ever issued to him and for disengaging him also no letter was issued. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner had worked for 78 days, 68 days and 58 days for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993 respectively. After his disengagement, with effect from July 1, 1993, he was never reengaged. He had made an application before the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) for conciliation proceeding in respect of his alleged termination from service. But the said conciliation had ended in failure. Although initially the Ministry of Labour informed all concerned that the dispute was not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal, the same was referred to the Tribunal after an order was passed by this Court. The respondent had denied the statement of the petitioner that he was appointed as a peon in the Asansol Branch of the Bank on and from April 1, 1991. This has been sought to be made by him to get some undue advantage of permanent employment. The petitioner also did not discharge the duties of a peon. The allegation that the petitioner had worked for more than 120 days continuously has also been denied by the respondents. Similarly, the allegation of his termination from service by the Branch Manager of the concerned bank has also been denied. He had never completed 120 days of continuous service and he is not entitled to the benefits of Section 25 B and 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was engaged as a casual labour for a limited period which was essentially temporary in nature. ;