- (1.) CHALLENGE made in this writ petition is directed against the award dated March 19, 1991 made by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No. CIT 44/87. This award has been passed on a reference of industrial dispute made by the Central Government vide its notification dated July 7, 1987 issued under Section 10 (1) (iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the matter of violation of Sections 25g and 25h allegedly committed by the employer in employing junior persons without considering the case of the workman Shri Gopal Lal Sharma (Respondent No. 2 ).
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was employed for a total period of 79 days with the petitioner Bank between May 23, 1985 and August 20, 1985. The appointment was given against a leave vacancy and was for a fixed term and came to an end automatically on the expiry of the period, A dispute was raised by the workman after about two years in the matter of alleged wrongful termination and also regarding violation of Sections 25g and 25h of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The Central Government, which is the appropriate Government in the present case, made reference of dispute to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur for adjudication. The workman submitted his statement of claim which was contested by the employer (petitioner) by filing a written statement. Evidence in the form of: affidavit along with the cross examination conducted thereon was produced by the workman and the employer. After considering the rival submissions, the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur passed award dated February 19, 1991. It held that the action of the management of the petitioner Bank violated the provisions of Sections 25g and 25h of the Act. It, therefore, ordered reinstatement of the workman but further ordered that he will not be entitled to the benefit of back wages. He will be entitled to salary only from the date he joined duty. The learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal, took notice of the fact that the workman is employed with the State Warehousing Corporation since December 25, 1985. It, therefore, left it open to the workman to join the duty of the Bank after leaving his employment with the Warehousing Corporation. The Tribunal ordered that he will be entitled for wages only from the date of joining the service of the petitioner Bank.
(3.) SHRI Jagat Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made twofold submissions. The first contention of Shri Arora is that the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal has committed an error of law in holding that there has been a violation of Section 25g of the Act. Shri Arora invited my attention to the statement of claim, the written statement, the evidence of the rival parties and strenuously argued that the workman had failed to establish that otherpersons who had been employed after him were retained in service. He also submitted that the finding about the violation of Section 25h of the Act is equally perverse. There is no evidence on record to show that any one was appointed after the termination of service of the workman.;