- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was initially appointed on 2. 11. 78 on a permanent post at State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Srimadhopur, District Sikar. Since the date of appointment he continuously worked for 162 days but without any notice and all of a sudden he was orally not permitted to mark his signature on the attendance register with effect from 21. 1. 1979. It is further the petitioner's case that during the whole of the above period, the petitioner worked to the best of his ability and there was no complaint against him. Thereafter the petitioner was again appointed in the respondent-Bank in 1988 and he worked till 11. 8. 90 but thereafter he was retrenched from service without any notice. It is also the petitioner's case that prior to his retrenchment no seniority list was published by the respondent and after that persons junior to the petitioner were appointed. Ultimately, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner (Central) on 19. 3. 96 and the Central Government vide order dated 30. 5. 2000 made the following reference:- " Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Girdhar Gopal Saini w. e. f. 21. 1. 1979 and again from 12. 8. 90 without giving any opportunity of employment and his junior Shri Shanker lal was employed is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?" Thereafter the petitioner filed a statement of claim before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur on 8. 8. 2000, which was registered vide CGIT No. 27/2000 in which it was specifically contended that the respondent Bank had retrenched the services of the petitioner in violation of Section Section 25f, 25g & 25h of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the `the Act') as well as Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 for short `the Rules' ). Since the date of his termination he is unemployed. In reply, the respondent-Bank while controverting petitioner's contentions, contended inter-alia that according to its Circular dated 23. 4. 87 all the ex-temporary employees of the Bank were given opportunity for permanent absorption and in this respect notices were also published in important English and Hindi news papers but the petitioner did not avail the said facility inasmuch as he did not even respond to the said Circular. Besides the above, the respondent-Bank has further contended that the matter was placed by the Corporation before Lok Adalat on 17. 2. 99 for settlement between the parties where officers and employees had gathered and through negotiations, the officers at the time of disposal of the dispute imposed some lesser punishment on the delinquent employees and resolved their disputes with the consent of the parties. The basis and the foremost object behind constitution/formation of the Lok Adalat is to settle the litigation and also to give moral support to its employee so that they could not repeat the same in future.
(3.) BESIDES the above, the respondent-Bank has further contended that the dispute has been raised with inordinate delay and hence the petition suffers from laches. In my view, since the Bank has not violated the provisions of Sec. 25f, G & H of the Act and the petitioner had worked in 1988-89 against the leave vacancy and as such, he cannot have any legal right to claim any permanency in employment. It was also submitted that termination of services of temporary employee is not within the purview of `retrenchment' under Section 2 (oo) the Act. The learned Tribunal had framed three issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. In support of his claim, the petitioner filed his affidavit of which he was cross examined by the Bank. The Bank also in support of its evidence submitted affidavit of one Shri Bheem Chand Tomar, who was the then Manager (Industrial Relations) in the Bank. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and award dated 25. 07. 2001 decided the dispute against the petitioner. Hence this petition. ;