- (1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 1196 of 1986, 6866 of 1989, 9053 of 1987 and 4525 of 1979, all of which relate to the litigation between Gurdaspur Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') on the one hand and its employees on the other. C.W.P. No. 1196 of 1986, Gurdaspur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others, 1991 1 SCT 143
(2.) In this petition filed by Gurdaspur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur, challenge has been made to the award of the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, dated 6th November, 1985, by which 17 workmen have been ordered to be reinstated in employment, with continuity of service and full back wages for the period of their unemployment with petitioner bank. The award under challenge has disposed of 17 consolidated references made by the Punjab Government for the adjudication of the following industrial dispute :- "Whether termination of services of Sarvshri Baljit Singh, Miss Kanta, Balwinder Singh, Sucha Singh, Baldev Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Jodh Singh, Rattan Chand, Kuldev Singh, Rajinder Kumar, Brij Lal, Surinder Nath, Jagir Singh, Dev Raj and Ajit Singh, workmen, is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation are they entitled ?" All the workmen were employed as Clerks/Peons with the Bank and their services were terminated in August, 1979. According to the claim made by the workmen they had become eligible to the benefits provided by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , and their services were terminated without serving them with one month's notice and without payment of any retrenchment compensation. The plea taken by the Bank before the Labour Court was that the workmen had not completed one year's service. Hence, the provisions of Section 25-F ibid were not attracted and, as such, no notice was required to be served on the workmen nor was any retrenchment compensation required to be paid by the Bank before terminating the services of the workmen. After examining the relevant record produced before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that even though all the workmen had not completed 240 days service, yet their services were terminated in anticipation and by circumventing the accrual of rights to the workmen on account of one year's continuous service (240 days) when they were close to attaining this right. This was unfair labour practice on the part of the Bank. Hence, retrenchment of the workmen was illegal. Reliance was placed by the learned Labour Court on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 3766 of 1983, delivered on 23rd January, 1984, in which it was held. "To conclude, we hold that the practice of retrenching a workmen, close to his attaining a year's continuous service in order to frustrate his attaining rights under Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is an unfair labour practice, unless there are reasons with the employer with regard to the conduct and service of the workman being unsatisfactory. How close should be such period towards attaining a year's continuous service and to come within the purview of 'unfair labour practice' is a question dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. We do not propose to lay down any guidelines on that aspect." As a result thereof, the termination of services of the workmen was found by the Labour Court to be in violation of law and they were ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.
(3.) Mr. H.L. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Bank, has challenged the award on the solitary ground that the plea of unfair labour practice had not been taken by the workmen in their original claim petition.;