Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) Civil Misc. No.1475 of 2014. The application for placing on record the replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents bank is allowed and the replication to the written statement is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. CWP No.17089 of 2013: The challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 1.5.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh whereby the petitioner-workman has been denied the relief by holding that the termination of his services comes under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and would not amount to retrenchment. Further finding was that the management was not liable to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workman was appointed on 29.4.1993 as a Peon on temporary basis by the respondent-bank and subsequently a panel of persons who were appointed on temporary basis was prepared by the bank and the name of the petitioner was included in the said panel and his name figured at Sr. No.3. The peons who had been appointed in the Amritsar Zone as temporary peons and were working for a period 5 years to 15 years had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 834 of 2002, Jagjit Singh and others v. Punjab and Sind Bank with a prayer to direct the respondent bank to regularize their services in this Court and this Court vide order dated 14.1.2002 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition directing the respondent-bank to decide the representation dated 21.11.2001. In view of the said direction, the bank started terminating the services of the temporary peons working in various branches in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the respondent-bank terminated the services of the petitioner-workman on 22.4.2002 without giving any notice and retrenchment compensation.
(3.) The petitioner-workman approached this Court along with seven others similarly situated persons by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 9951 of 2002, Balbir Singh and others v. Punjab and Sind Bank and others with a prayer for quashing of the termination order and for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was admitted and come up for hearing on 4.11.2008 and the petitioners were relegated to their alternative remedy. As such the matter was referred to the Labour Court wherein the petitioner-workman filed his claim petition and also filed application salary register from the respondent bank. However, reply was not filed to the application and the Labour Court allowed the application vide order dated 7.6.2012. However, in spite of the fact that the petitioner had worked for a period of 9 years the Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that the petitioner had been engaged for 60 days subject to the condition that his services would be of temporary nature and the appointment letter showed that the appointment was not continuous and there were gaps of a month or more periods each time between various appointment letters. It was held that the workman failed to show that action of the respondents was malafide and amounted to unfair labour practice. Hence, the present writ petition.;