- (1.) BANK of Baroda (petitioner) has preferred this writ petition assailing an Award dated January 6, 2000 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") in CGIT/b-1 5/98 whereby the Tribunal held the termination of respondent No. 2 (Aaram Saini) dated September 8, 1992 as illegal and thus, quashed the termination holding the employee entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages besides treating him in service without break.
(2.) THE undisputed facts are that an industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 2 which was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal in following term of reference - "whether the action of the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur is justified in terminating the service of respondent No. 2 Aaram Saini s/o Gangaram Saini part time peon with effect from September 08, 1992: If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
(3.) IN his claim petition before the Tribunal, it was the case of the workman that he was appointed as Peon in Branch of the petitioner Bank at Pokhar (Dausa) on June 28, 1989; that he was discharging his duties as Peon but was paid only Rs. 100/- per month; that he continued to work in the Bank upto September 8, 1992 when his services were terminated as he claimed to grant him regular pay scale; prior to his termination/retrenchment one month's notice so also pay in lieu thereof besides retrenchment compensation was not paid to him, inasmuch, as persons junior to him were retained in service and, therefore, his termination was arbitrary being in violation of provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, against which he had also filed SB Civil WP No. 743/1993 but this Court by its order dated November 01, 1996 dismissed his petition on the ground of alternative remedy available to him. However, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer whereunder the petitioner Bank in its reply asserted that the workman was assigned the work of cleaning and making available drinking water by filling up the pitchers at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month as a part timer as his said work was not of more than an hour a day, inasmuch as his job was not of permanent nature. In reply the petitioner Bank asserted that the workman though worked as a full time peon but against leave vacancy only for 78 days and that apart he never worked for 240 days in the Bank at a stretch as is required under the Industrial Disputes Act to hold him a workman so as to be entitled to the benefit of Sections 25f and 25-G, which in case of the respondent No. 2 was considered to be inapplicable.;