Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Manjushree Tower, Ranchi, 834001 represented v. Santosh Kumar Pandey
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4937 of 2014 -------------- Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Manjushree Tower, Ranchi, 834001 represented through its Chief Manager, Regional Office, Ranchi, having its office at Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Ranchi ….….Petitioner Versus Santosh Kumar Pandey ….…. Respondent ------ CORAM : HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Petitioner For the Respondent ------ : Mr. Parth S.A.S. Pati, Advocate : Mr. Saibal Kr. Laik, Advocate --------- ORAL ORDER IN COURT Order No. 13 / Dated: 29.07.2024 This writ petition has been field on behalf of the petitioner-Bank by challenging the Award dated 28.04.2014
Legal Reasoning
passed by Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I ( C.G.I.T. No. 1), Dhanbad in I.D. Case No. 01 of 2013 and Reference case No. 42 of 2012 jointly by which C.G.I.T. No. 1, Dhanbad had ordered for reinstatement of respondent . 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ex-parte Award dated 28.04.2014 has been passed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the representative of the Bank had appeared before the Tribunal and the Respondent Workman had opposed the appearance of the Management though its counsel, however after closure of the evidence of the Respondent Workman, the representative of the Petitioner Bank could not appeared on some date and as such the Ex-parte 1 Award was passed by the learned Court below. It is submitted no opportunity was given to the Petitioner Bank to contest the case as such the impugned Award may be set- aside and this Writ Petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel of the Respondent- Workman has opposed and submitted that this Writ Petition is devoid of merit. It is further submitted that despite valid service of notice, the Petitioner Bank neither appeared nor filed counter statement nor contested the case and hence no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal by passing the impugned Award. It is submitted that the Workman has fully supported his case by adducing evidence and has filed the relevant documents in support of his case before the learned Tribunal and which was found correct and proper by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the workman was illegally terminated from his services on 01.08.2010 without any prior notice. It is submitted that the workman had worked on 04.10.2009 till 31.07.2010 i.e. for around 285 days and as such he was rightly directed to be reinstated by the Tribunal. Thus there is no illegality perversity in the impugned Award and hence this Writ Petition may be dismissed. Perused the Records of this case and considered the 5. submission of both the sides. 6. It appears from the record that after failure of conciliation the Respondent-Workman had raised the Industrial Dispute used the matter of workman was referred to Industrial Dispute in exercise of power conferred of under section 10 (1) (d) of Industrial Dispute Act , for adjudication to Tribunal and the terms of reference was as follows:- 2 “Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in terminating the service of Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey w.e.f. 01.08.2010 is legal and justified ? Whether the demand of the workman for regularisation of his service is just and proper? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” 7. It appears from the order-sheet, it appears that the workman had appeared by filed his written statement and had adduced evidence by examining himself as W.W.1 Santosh Kumar Pandey and he had also filed the certain documents in support of his case. 8. It appears from the order-sheet from the learned Tribunal enclosed with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure -5 and 5/1 respectively that the representative of the Management had also appeared and had filed the written statement on 01.08.2011, however the learned Tribunal restrained him to appear through his advocate on the prayer of the Workman and had directed the management to contest this case through its Own Officer. 9. It also appears that one Mrs. Sunita Kisan had also appeared on behalf of the management on 15.12.2011 and filed authority and even Written Statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner Bank. 10. It transpires that even the representative of the Management were present on 04.11.2011, 15.12.2011, 07.02.2012 and 19.03.2012 respectively. However, it appear that on 21.06.2012 none appeared on behalf of the Management and as such notice was issued by the P.O. upon the Petitioner Bank i.e the Management. 11. It also appears that on 13.09.2012, the Workman had got examined himself . 12. It transpires that the learned Court below has 3 passed Ex –parte Award without even adjudicating the terms of reference and the claim of the parties. 13. It transpires that even the learned Tribunal had not discussed the evidence of the workman –respondent as well as documents filed on behalf of the Workman and has passed the Award in two (02) Paragraphs as follows:- “Para -7 :- In spite of valid postal registered notice, the management neither appeared nor filed counter claim statement. Considering the bank vouchers payment to workman and his unchallenged testimony there is no reason to believed his case.” “Para 8:- Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Union Bank of India in terminating the service of Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey w.e.f 01.08.2010 is not legal and justified, Accordingly it is ordered to reinstate him in his post on the prevalent scale of pay as temporary worker.” 14. Thus, the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is cryptic and non- speaking and has been hurriedly in an Ex-parte manner. 15. Under circumstances, the Award dated 28.04.2014 passed by Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I ( C.G.I.T. No. 1), Dhanbad in I.D. Case No. 01 of 2013 and Reference case No. 42 of 2012 is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the CGIT-I Dhanbad with the direction to decide and adjudicate the reference within the period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned Tribunal shall allow the Management to lead the evidence and file the documents, it own in support of its case documents 4 within one (01) month from the date of receiving the copy of this order and the entire exercise must be completed within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is made clear that Management shall not take any unnecessary time, failing which the Respondent Workman will be at liberty to taken suitable step. 16. Let a copy of this order to sent to the learned Court below by the ‘Fax’ at once. Bibha/Nishant (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 5