Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 20th May 2020
The Manager State Bank of Bikaner vs. The Presiding Officer Central
The Respondent had come up with a case that he was engaged with the petitioner-Bank as a temporary Clerk-cum-Cashier and was thereafter disengaged from service. The other respondents also had a similar case and he stated that they were engaged as a temporary Clerk and was disengaged on. The respondents come up with a case that they were entitled to be absorbed as regular employees. They had taken a case that when they were retrenched they were not the junior most temporary employees in the organization, meaning thereby their services were done away with in violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, and it was stated after they were removed, fresh hands were recruited in violation of the provisions of section 25H of the Central Act. It was stated that these actions of the employer were in violation of the SASTRY Award and the bipartite agreement between the bank and Workers’ Union. The petitioner-Bank had opposed the claim of the respondent before the Tribunal.
However, the Tribunal, before which pleadings were filed and oral evidence passed an award by which the respondent were reinstated but without back-wages.
Respondents after being disengaged raised the industrial dispute very late in the day. The workmen were not in employment of the petitioner since the last 37 years; the one of the respondent at the time of filing of the counter affidavit, was aged about 48 years and now was more than 57 years of age whereas another respondent, at the time of filing of the counter affidavit was aged about 46 years and now he was more than 55 years of age and, therefore, they be not granted any relief. It was also submitted that the respondents were not entitled for any back-wages as they had raised the industrial dispute very belatedly and, therefore, the connected writ petition be dismissed.
When the issue with regard to the violation of the provisions of section 25H of the Central Act was being considered, then it became imperative that the findings with regard to the provisions of section 25G of the Central Act and Rules 77 and 78 of the Central Rules be given. When it was evident from the award that juniors were absorbed to the detriment of the petitioners then the award could not be interfered with so far as it reinstated the workmen-respondent submitted that the delay of almost 11 years which was committed by the Tribunal should not have been there.
Courts View and Decision:
The workmen must have been taken back in service as per the interim orders of this Court and, therefore, I do not find it appropriate to grant any back-wages as since 2011 they must have been getting their regular salaries. The court finds that no interference is warranted in both the writ petitions. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. However, if in pursuance of the interim orders, the workmen have not been reinstated, then it would be deemed that they were reinstated on the date when the first interim order and all wages which were payable to the workman would be granted to them. It may be stated that all consequential benefits of the award whereby the workmen were required to be reinstated shall also be provided to the respondent-workmen.