Allowed

G.M.Prscentral Bank of India v. P.O.Cgit, Jaipur and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2017CW/5098/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an award from the Labour Court regarding a dispute on whether a workman was employed on a contract of service. The Court held the award was vitiated due to apparent perversity because the Presiding Officer ignored the workman's affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The award dated 09.09.2005 is quashed and set aside. No costs.

G.M.Prscentral Bank of India Vs P.O.Cgit… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5098 / 2006

¶3

The General manager (PRS), Central Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai

¶4

The Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Ananad Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur

¶5

The Branch manager, Central Bank of India, Johri Bazar, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sector No. 10, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur

¶9

The President, Rajasthan State Bank Employees’ Welfare Forum, 158, Laxman path, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur- 302019

¶10

Shri Gopal Lal Pareek S/o Shri hanuman Sahai, C/o. The President, Rajasthan State Bank Employees’ Welfare Forum, 158, Laxman path, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur- 302019

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupin K Kala

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Beg

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

07/11/2017

¶17

The award dated 09.09.2005 is under challenge by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no document to prove that the workman had worked for 240 days in the last preceding year. The statement made by the workman on oath clearly shows that he was not employed with the bank but it was a contract for service and not a contract of service. It is also submitted that the award does not take into consideration, the affidavit and cross-examination of the said

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-5098/2006]

¶20

workman for whom the union had raised dispute namely Gopal Lal Pareek.

¶21

I have examined the submissions. On perusal of the affidavit of Gopal Lal Pareek and the cross-examination conducted thereto, it is noted that the claim set up by the Union was contrary to the affidavit of Gopal Lal Pareek who has deposed before the Labour Court that he was engaged to prepare tea for the employees of the bank and was being paid for the said purpose. He admits and he had applied for loan for setting up of milk dairy and he was taking care of the canteen of the bank. On perusal of the award it is seen that the Presiding Officer has completely ignored the said affidavit and proceeded with assumption that the workman Gopal Lal Pareek was discharging job of filling water in the cooler as well as cleaning and dusting in the office. No such statement had been made by the concerned workman in his affidavit nor in his crossexamination. Thus, there is an apparent perversity of reading of evidence. Award is therefore vitiated in law and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

¶23

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J.

¶24

M.Meena/16

G.M.Prscentral Bank of India v. P.O.Cgit, Jaipur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.M.Prscentral Bank of India v. P.O.Cgit, Jaipur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Chand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bajaj Allianze General Insuran Vs Shafi Mohammad and Ors.

Ramji Lal Rana Vs Principal Secretary Dep Edu Ors.

Ravindra Singh@Dabbu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Prabhu Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sayed Nadeem Ali Vs State of Raj and Ors.