BANK OF BARODA Vs. GHEMARBHAI HARJIBHAI RABARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a reference made to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in regard to the termination of services of the respondent herein. Said reference culminated in an award directing the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent herein in service at his original post with continuity of service and full backwages. A challenge to the said award made before a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court by way of a writ petition came to be dismissed. A further appeal filed before a Division Bench of the same High Court also came to be dismissed, hence, this appeal.

(2.) Before the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent claimed that he was working with the appellant-bank as a driver on a salary of Rs. 1,500 p.m. driving a car belonging to the bank allotted to one of its officers by name Mr. Menon. He claimed that he worked in that capacity from June, 1994 to October, 1995, and the salary paid to him was debited to the account of the bank in its books. He also claimed that from October, 1995 his services were illegally terminated without paying any compensation under Section 25A of the Industrial Disputes Act, (the Act) and in violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act and on that basis he claimed his reinstatement with full backwages.

(3.) The bank in its turn denied the claim of the appellant that he was employed by it. It took a stand that it was a nationalised bank and under its rules and regulations any appointment that is made, will have to be through a letter of appointment and such appointment has to be made through the Employment Exchange or through an advertisement made by the bank. No such procedure was followed in the appointment of the workman in this case. It took the stand that it has a scheme under which the bank allotted a car to some of its Executives but the bank did not provide a driver for the car and the responsibility of having a driver was that of the concerned Executive, and if such Executive appointed a driver, the employment of the driver came to an end with the Executives retirement or transfer. Therefore, such drivers were not employees of the bank. It, however, admitted that the amount of salary which is Rs. 1,500 in this case paid by the Executive concerned was reimbursed by the bank but that did not make the driver an employee of the bank. According to the appellant-bank, this is a scheme which is applicable in many of the nationalised banks and the drivers of such vehicles are personal employees of the Executives concerned.