Allowed

Asstt.Gen.Manager Uco Bank Jai v. Raj.Bank Employees Union and Ors.

Rajasthan HC26 Feb 2015CW/6561/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Central Industrial Tribunal's award directing reinstatement and back wages. The court held the respondent failed to prove engagement of subsequent workmen required by Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is allowed and the impugned award of the Central Industrial Tribunal is quashed and set aside.

Asstt.Gen.Manager Uco Bank Jai Vs Raj.Bank… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6561/1998

¶4

Asstt. General Manager, UCO Bank, Jaipur

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Bank Employees Union & Anr.

¶7

Date of Order :: 26^th February, 2015

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Mr.C.P. Sharma for petitioner. None present for respondent-Union.

¶10

<><><>

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

The instant writ application projects a challenge to the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for short) in Case No. CIT-39/89 wherein the petitioner-Bank was directed to reinstate the respondent/workman and further, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was allowed on account of back wages.

¶13

Briefly, the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947', for short). The appropriate government made a reference whereupon case number CIT-39/89 was registered before the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking into consideration the statement of claim and response thereto as

¶14

¶15

well as evidence adduced by the parties and materials available on

¶16

record, answered the reference in favour of the respondent/workman (Om Prakash Chouhan) for violation of mandate of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947, and directed the petitioner-Bank to reinstate the respondent/workman and also allowed an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of back wages.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application has strenuously argued that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is against the facts, evidence and materials available on record. According to the learned counsel, no details of any person subsequent to the retrenchment of the petitioner was detailed out in the statement of claim. Further, no evidence was adduced by the respondent/workman to substantiate the fact of engagement of Indra Singh and Banshi Lal and this fact has also been taken note of by the Tribunal, as would be evident from the observation made under paragraph 12 of the impugned award. In the alternative, learned counsel argued that the direction for reinstatement of the respondent/workman, is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the recent pronouncements by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank and with his assistance, perused the materials available on record. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent/workman in spite of service.

¶19

The Tribunal after careful consideration of the pleaded facts, evidence adduced and material brought on record, arrived at a

¶20

¶21

finding that the respondent/workman worked for 99 days. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/workman was engaged as a casual worker. From the pleaded facts and materials available on record, it is further reflected that though the petitioner detailed out engagement of Indra Singh, Banshi Lal and Sittal Garg, without affording any opportunity to the respondent/workman, but in this regard, no evidence has been brought on record.

¶22

The Tribunal on an appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced, observed that it was not even discernible from the affidavit of the respondent/workman as to whether Indra Singh and Sittal Garg were engaged after retrenchment of the respondent/workman and for how many days, they continued in engagement/employment. In the case of The Ranger Forest Officer versus S.T. Hadimani : (2002) 3 SCC 25 , the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land held thus:-

¶23

“For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the appellant is an "industry" or not, though reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Pratam Singh Narsinh Parmar (2001)ILLJ1118SC. In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the Management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as

¶24

¶25

sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. However, Mr. Hegde appearing for the Department states that the State is really interested in getting the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment on compassionate grounds on the same terms as he was allegedly engaged prior to his termination, within two months from today.”

¶26

From the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be safely inferred that primarily, it is the duty of the respondent/ workman to adduce the evidence in support of his claim and prove the facts asserted by him. No effort was made on behalf of the respondent/workman either for production of any relevant record or for summoning of the witness of the Branch of the Bank, to prove the fact of engagement of Indra Singh, Banshi Lal and Sittal Garg, without affording an opportunity of offer to the petitioner for employment.

¶27

In the circumstances aforesaid, violation of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947 cannot be said to be proved.

¶28

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal with reference to violation of mandate of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947, cannot be sustained.

¶29

In the result, the writ application succeeds, and is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 7^th March, 1998, passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No.CIT-39-89, is hereby

¶30

¶31

quashed and set aside.

¶32