Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The impugned award dated 26.9.2014 (Annexure-5) passed in Reference Case No. 1 of 2013, challenged by both Management of the Bank and the Workman for their own reasons reads as under:- "By order No. L-12012/24/2012-IR (B-H) dated 23/11/2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal: SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the Services of Shri Parameshwar Das w.e.f. 15.4.2010, is legal and justified? Whether the demand of Shri Das for his reinstatement in Bank service with full back wages and continuity of service with all benefits is just and proper? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?" 2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 06.02.2013. After notice both parties appeared. The workman files their written statement on 02.05.2013. But the Management never appeared in spite of regd. Notice being sent. Thereafter the case is heard as ex-parte, workman files their document which is marked as W-1, & W-10. 3. The short point that is involved in this case whether the workman is to be regularized as Messsenger / daily wager in the Bank or not. The claim of the workman is that they were engaged by the Bank Manager and they were rendering service continuously but the Bank Management without any reason asked them not to come to Bank for work. 4. In spite of valid notice the Bank Management did not appear nor filed any written statement. The workman files documents to show that he worked as casual workman. There is no reason to disbelieve the document of the workman which has been given on bank pad. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that at this situation it is held that the Bank Management to accept them as casual employee/ daily wager and they be engaged in the Bank as and when required by the Bank Management. This is my award".
(3.) Petitioner-Management of Bank in W.P.(L) No. 56 of 2016 have assailed the impugned award on the ground that it is wholly cryptic and non-speaking rendered without any notice to the petitioner Management. Petitioner- Workman in W.P.(L) No. 5049 of 2015 is aggrieved by the tenor of the operating directions contained at para 5 of the impugned award where the Management of the Bank has been directed to engage him as and when required by the Management. Learned counsel for the workman has not been able to dispel the infirmity apparent on the face of the award that it does not contain any discussion what so ever on the material evidence produced by the workman to arrive at such finding.;