Anand Singh Adhikari vs Bank of Baroda

A.K. Sikri, J.—The petitioner workmen had raised the dispute which was referred for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal vide reference under dated 15.7.1992 with the following terms of reference:-

"Whether the claim of Shri Anand Singh Adhikari that he had worked in the Bank of Baroda, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad Branch, for 7 months from 10.5.90 to 10.12.90 on daily wages and was forced to sign on payment vouchers in different names during the period is correct ? Is he eligible for consideration for permanent appointment in terms of the Bank''s advertised in Nav Bharat Times dated 24.8.1991 ? What relief, if any is the workman entitled to ?

It is clear that the reference order is in two parts namely :

Whether the workman had worked for 7 months i.e. from 10.5.90 to 10.12.90 and he was forced to sign the payment vouchers in different names during this period and (2) whether the workmen was eligible for consideration for permanent appointment in term of the Bank''s advertisement in the Nav Bharat Times dated 24.8.1991.

As far as first part of the reference is concerned the Tribunal did not render any findings. This the Tribunal was contacted that there was no reason to believe that the management would ask any person to sign in different names for the work done by him and on the assumption that the workman had worked for 7 months proceeded to decide the second part of the reference holding that since the workman had not worked for 240 days he had no right to be regularised in service without following procedure meant for recruitment for regular employees in the Nationalised bank. Second part of the reference order does not stipulate regularization of the workmen but regarding petitioner entitlement to permanent employment in terms of advertisement in the Nav Bharat Times dated 24.8.91. Therefore what the Industrial Tribunal was to decide was as to whether the petitioner was eligible for consideration in terms of the advertisement. It is stated by the petitioner that any workman who works for 90 days becomes eligible to apply for permanent appointment pursuant to such advertisement and this was the pleadings before the C.G.IT.Admittedly the case has not been considered from this angle by the C.G.I.T. and instead the C.G.I.T. proceeded on the basis that petitioner had not worked for 240 days and Therefore not entitled to regularization.

It is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent bank that the reference was not even maintainable inasmuch as there is no espousal by any union and, Therefore, it does not become on the "Industrial Dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, since it is not the case of dismissal or discharge etc. it cannot be deemed an industrial dispute u/s 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act as well. It is further stated by the counsel for the respondents that the workman had not worked for 90 days in a particular Branch and he was not eligible to apply for appointment pursuant to advertisement in the Nav Bharat Times dated 24.8.1991 and in fact he did not apply for the said appointment. Needless to say, these are the aspects which were to be looked into by the Industrial Tribunal with reference to the pleadings and not by this Court u/s 226 of the Constitution when C.G.I.T. had not referred to these aspects or dealt with the name. In fact it shows that even the respondent-management is aggrieved by the award.

In view of my aforesaid discussion writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 9th October, 1998 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal with the directions to deal with the case on merits as per the terms of reference and the pleadings of the parties. Since it is an old matter, it is expected that the same would be decided expeditiously by the C.G.I.T.

No order as to costs.