A.L.Ramu v. Management, Pandyan Grama Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 13-04-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.743 of 2004A.L.Ramu .. Petitioner.Versus1.The Management,Pandyan Grama Bank,No.72, Kandapuram Street,Virudhunagar 626 001.2.The Presiding Officer,Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Shahstri Bhavan, Haddows Road,Chennai-600 006... Respondents.Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to award,dated 28.3.2002, passed in I.D.No.465 of 2001, by the secondrespondent Tribunal, to quash the same and direct the firstrespondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with allconsequential benefits including backwages. For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.S.GiridharFor Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasamoorthy (R1)O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed challenging the award of thesecond respondent Tribunal, dated 28.3.2002, made in I.D.No.465 of2001, and for a direction to the first respondent to reinstate thepetitioner in service, with all consequential benefits, includingbackwages. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as aTiny Deposit Collector in the first respondent Bank, under the`Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme', by an order of appointment, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.2.1985, in accordance with the terms of the agreement made betweenthe petitioner and the first respondent Bank, on commission basis.While so, the first respondent had issued a letter, dated 2.3.1995,against the opening of new accounts, if the deposit in the `NithamValar Nithi Scheme' account in the first respondent Bank is less thanrupees five lakhs. Accordingly, the first respondent had stoppedassigning work to the petitioner and he was terminated from service,without giving any notice or reasons for such termination. Therefore,the action of the first respondent Bank in terminating the service ofthe petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable.3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner is that the second respondent Tribunal had erred inholding that the termination of the petitioner is justified, in spiteof the finding that he was a workman and that there was violation ofSection 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been furthercontended that the termination of the petitioner from service by thefirst respondent Bank, being arbitrary and illegal, ought to havebeen set aside by the second respondent Tribunal and the saidTribunal ought to have directed the first respondent Bank toreinstate the petitioner in service, with back wages and all otherattendant benefits. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thefirst respondent Bank had submitted that the petitioner had beenterminated from service only due to the fact that the `Nitham ValarNithi Scheme' had been withdrawn due to administrative and financialreasons. There was no mala fide action on the part of the firstrespondent Bank in retrenching the petitioner from service. Since the`Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme' had been withdrawn there is nopossibility of the petitioner being reinstated in service, along withthe back wages and other attendant benefits, as prayed for by thepetitioner. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel forthe first respondent that the second respondent Tribunal had come toits conclusions based on the evidence available on record and byconsidering the fact that the `Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme' had beenwithdrawn in respect of the first respondent Bank due toadministrative and financial reasons. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent hadrelied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:i) In M/s.Parry and Co. Ltd. V. P.C.Pal (1970 II LLJ 429), theSupreme Court had held that reorganisation of business was within themanagerial discretion of the employer. A bona fide reorganisation ofbusiness resulting in retrenchment of labour does not givejurisdiction to the Tribunal to go into the question as to thepropriety of such reorganisation of business and the consequentdischarge of surplus labour. The determination of workload and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ labour strength are factors to be decided by the employer. Once it isfound that the retrenchment of surplus labour is bona fide and notmala fide the industrial tribunal cannot interfere with the saidretrenchment. ii) In Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bankand others (2001(3) SCC 36), it had been held that commission agentsand deposit collectors of banks are not entitled to pay scales,allowances and service conditions applicable to regular bankemployees.6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent and inview of the decided cases relied on by the learned counsel for thefirst respondent and on considering the records available, this Courtis of the considered view that the petitioner has not shownsufficient cause or reason for interfering with the award of thesecond respondent Tribunal, dated 28.3.2002, made in I.D.No.465 of2001. 7. The second respondent Tribunal having come to the conclusionthat the petitioner is a workman, under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, had held that he should have been paid the retrenchmentcompensation, under Section 25F of the said Act, by the firstrespondent Bank. However, since the `Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme',under which the petitioner had been employed had been, withdrawn inrespect of the first respondent Bank, no direction had been issued bythe second respondent Tribunal to the first respondent Bank toreinstate the petitioner in service, with back wages and otherattendant benefits, as prayed for by the petitioner. Unless, it wasfound that the withdrawal of the scheme was mala fide it cannot besaid that the retrenchment of the petitioner by the first respondentBank is arbitrary or void. Since the second respondent Tribunal hadfound that the retrenchment of the petitioner from service was due tothe fact that the `Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme' had been withdrawn inrespect of the petitioner Bank due to administrative and financialreasons and as it was found to be bona fide in nature there was noscope for the second respondent Tribunal to grant the reliefs, asprayed for by the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the writpetition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. Hence,it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.8. At this stage of hearing of the writ petition, the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that theretrenchment compensation, as directed by the second respondentTribunal, had not been paid to the petitioner, till date. On suchsubmission being made, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thefirst respondent Bank had stated that in case the retrenchmentcompensation, ordered to be paid by the second respondent Tribunal, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has not been paid to the petitioner till date, the first respondentBank would comply with the said order, within a period of 15 daysfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Management,Pandyan Grama Bank,No.72, Kandapuram Street,Virudhunagar 626 001.2.The Presiding Officer,Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Shahstri Bhavan, Haddows Road,Chennai-600 006.1 cc To Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, Advocate, SR.13972.Writ Petition No.743 of 2004 RJ(CO)RVL 28.04.2009