Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner/workman, in the instant writ petition, has impeached the award dated 18th June, 1997 passed by the Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short), in Reference No. L -12012/159/95 dated 30th September, 1996 and consequently, has prayed for the following relief(s): - - "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that: - - (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 18.6.1997 in C.I.T.R. 11/96 in Reference No. L -12012/159/95 dated 30.9.96 be quashed and set aside; (b) by an appropriate writ order or direction the verbal order of termination Dt. 22.11.93 which has been passed by the Respondent No. 2 & 3 be also quashed and set aside; (c) cost of the writ petition may also be awarded to the petitioner; (d) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the writ petition may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are: that the writ petitioner/workman was engaged as Class -IV employees on 21st May, 1992 by the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Village Kirav, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent -Bank, for short) and worked upto 22nd November, 1993, without any break while his engagement was terminated by verbal order. It is pleaded case of the petitioner/workman that the fact of his engagement with effect from 21st May, 1992 to 22nd November, 1993, has been certified by the respondent/Bank vide Certificate dated 14th December, 1992 (Annexure -1). Further, the respondent/Bank is within the purview of an 'industry' and therefore, was obliged to ensure compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short), before terminating his engagement/employment. As a sequel of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner/workman, the appropriate Government made a reference vide order dated 3rd September, 1996/3rd October, 1996 and the learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 18th June, 1997, has answered the reference in negative. The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has vehemently argued that the impugned award dated 18th June, 1997, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and materials available on record and therefore, needs to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel would further submit that the fact of the petitioner/workman having worked for more than 240 days with the respondent/Bank is apparent on the face of record in view of the Certificate issued by none else but by the respondent/Bank, which conclusively proved the engagement of the petitioner/workman for 448 days. It is further contended that the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and relied upon by the learned Tribunal is not attracted to the facts of the instant case at hand and therefore, illegality and perversity is apparent on the face of record. Further, but for a counter -affidavit to the statement of claim, no witness was produced by the respondent/Bank. Moreover, in the face of Certificate issued by the respondent/Bank (Annexure -1), the period of engagement of the petitioner/workman for more than 240 days is an admitted fact and therefore, the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act of 1947, were attracted and the compliance was mandatory before terminating the employment of the petitioner/workman. Hence, the petitioner/workman is entitled to consequential benefits i.e., reinstatement including back wages. To reinforce his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R to Mangt. of FCI (Civil Appeal No. 2417 -2418/2014) decided on 17th February, 2014; Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub -Division, Kota v. Mohan Lal (Civil Appeal No. 6795/2013) decided on 16.08.2013; B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal (Civil Appeal No. 10957 of 2013) decided on 11.12.2013; State of Maharashtra v. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli (Civil Appeal No. 2565 of 2006); Chief Administrator, Housing Board Haryana v. Diwan Chand (Civil Appeal No. 3357 of 2008); Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2013) decided on 12th August, 2013 and on the opinion of this Court in the case of Municipal Board Pushkar, through Executive Officer v. Saffuddin & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 903/2007) decided on 17th July, 2007.
(3.) IN response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent/Bank has filed its counter -affidavit pleading that the engagement of the petitioner/workman was purely on temporary and ad -hoc basis till the regularly selected Class -IV employee was made available in accordance with the Statutory Recruitment Scheme and procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules of the respondent/Bank. The learned counsel would further submit that the temporary engagement, on daily wages basis, of the petitioner/workman came to an end after each day of work. Therefore, the engagement being on daily wages basis for each day, was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 and hence, the termination of employment was not within the ambit of the Act of 1947. Moreover, a bare perusal of the affidavit of the petitioner/workman and cross -examination thereon, would reveal that the engagement/employment of the petitioner/workman was not in accordance with the statutory recruitment procedure prescribed for appointment of Class -IV employee of the respondent/Bank and therefore, the action cannot be faulted. Hence, the impugned award dated 18th June, 1997 calls for no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court.;