Mukesh Pandey Son of Sri Shivadhar Pandey vs State Bank of India

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondent Bank as well as learned counsel for the

Union of India.

Challenge is to the order dated 20th July, 2015 passed by

the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 5588/2014. It is an intra-court

appeal under Letters Patent.

Learned Single Judge set aside the Award dated

19.04.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

1, Dhanbad in Reference case No. 117/2001 holding that the Award

was in contravention of the reference.

No doubt, a dispute was referred by the Central

Government, Ministry of Labour under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of the

Industrial Dispute Act. The terms of reference was as under:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Patna in not considering the workman Shri Mukesh Pandey for re-employment, while making appointment of fresh hand i.e. S/Sh Rabindra Kr., Kaushal Kr., Sujit Kr., Awadesh Kr. Singh, Mahendra Roy, Kumar Murlidhar, Bindeshwar Paswan, Sanjal Pandit and Jai Prakash Ojha, is justified, if not what relief the workman is entitled?"

The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge in

detail. We too have considered and gone through the Award in

question dated 19.04.2013. Obviously, the Tribunal has mixed up the

two aspects and the Award was given. The basic flaw, which has

emerged from perusal of the Award, is that the disengagement of the

present appellant was treated as a case of retrenchment under Section

25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act which it was not as is the stand of

the Bank.

We do not find any discussion or material to reach the

conclusion which has been reached by the Tribunal in terms of the

reference noted above. There is nothing to show that the case of the

present appellant was similar or at par with some of the names which

have been referred to in the reference made by the Central

Government. Either the Tribunal was confused on the issue or did not

understand the true import of the reference. Since it was not the case

of holding the disengagement of the appellant to be in violation of

Section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act for which a reference was

made, the order for reinstatement without back wages was uncalled

for.

The learned Single Judge, in the above circumstances,

has rightly held that the Award was beyond the terms of reference.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.