SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner, an urban cooperative bank, by way of present writ petition, has assailed the order and directions issued under the award dated 19/07/2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as the 'Tribunal').
(2.) This case has checkered history. As per petitioner they had taken up the work of collection of payments of water and electricity consumption bills from private parties for the Government Department i.e. PHED and Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The work was being undertaken at all the branches of the petitioner-Bank and one of the registered union of the Bank namely; Apex Organization of Rajasthan Cooperative Sector Employees Union raised a demand on 18/02/1982 which contained 14 different demands. While the conciliation proceedings were undergoing, services of the members of the said Union were terminated and therefore, a claim petition was filed and reference was made by the State Government under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947') to the effect that "Whether the action of the Manager, Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Nehru Bazar, Jaipur in terminating services of 30 workmen mentioned in the list was justified and correct and if not, what relief they were entitled to ?" The list contained the name of 30 workmen.
(3.) A statement of claim was filed by the respondent-Union and it was stated that the action had been taken in vengeance and with the purpose to snub the demand raised by the Union and in this manner, the action was an unfair labour practise and came within the definition of exploitation. It was further claimed that while dispensing with the services of the workmen, notice or pay in lieu of notice and compensation for retrenchment in terms of Section 25-B and 25-F had not been paid. No show cause notice was given to any of the workmen and no domestic enquiry was conducted and the action was wholly unjustified. It was further stated that from the date of employment, the said workmen had been continuously performing their duties and were stopped to enter the premises and perform their duties w.e.f. 01/09/1982. It was further submitted that the petitioner itself had appointed the said workmen and was having full control over the said workmen and thus were its employees. The claim was filed for 15 workmen only out of total 30 and it was stated that they were performing the duties of Bill Clerk and there was no misconduct committed by them. Further, it was alleged that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 had been violated and all of them have been rendered jobless. For another 5 workmen, a separate statement of claim was filed reiterating the same submissions as above.;