Chandra Road, Jaipur. vs For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Rupin Kala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain with Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/03/2025

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 24.01.2000 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by which the statement of claim submitted by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred as ‘workman’) has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the petitioner to re-employee the workman, in service.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman was engaged as daily wager in the petitioner-bank at Tripolia Bazar Branch, where he worked for 78 days in between

15.12.1992 to 20.03.1993, thereafter, with the gap of two years, he was re-engaged on the said post for a period of 67 days at Park [2025:RJ-JP:12510] (2 of 5) [CW-3742/2001] Street Branch with effect from 26.09.1995 till 07.12.1995. Counsel submits that no other person was engaged/employed by the petitioner-bank in place of workman, in the branches where he was working. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, there was no violation of the provisions contained under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that in the statement of claim, a vague plea was taken by the workman with regard to the engagement of other person in his place, but no name was mentioned in the statement of claim. Counsel submits that an affidavit was submitted by the workman, wherein, name of four persons namely Brijesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar Meena, Rajendra Kumar, Rajendra Solanki have been mentioned. Counsel submits that as per the contents of the affidavit of the workman, these persons were engaged in the year 1993-1994 i.e. much prior to the retrenchment of the workman. Counsel further submits that the above recorded persons were selected through a regular selection process, they were not appointed on casual basis. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the provisions contained under Section 25H of the Act of 1947 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, even then, the Tribunal has seriously erred in passing the impugned award against the workman which warrants interference of this Court. Lastly, he argued that the different branches of the petitioner-bank cannot be treated as a single unit of the Bank of Baroda as this issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Baroda, Kota vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-Cum-LC, Kota & Anr. reported in 2010(2) WLC 675. In addition, he has placed [2025:RJ-JP:12510] (3 of 5) [CW-3742/2001] reliance upon other judgments passed by this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Yadav & Anr. vs. RSRTC & Anr. reported in 1990 (60) FLR 267 and Union Bank Employees Association vs. Union Bank of India reported in 2002(3) RLW 1366.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that different branches of the petitioner falls within the control of the petitioner-bank as it is their appointment and controlling authority. Counsel submits that after retrenchment from the services of the workman, 4 persons were given appointment in different branches of the petitioner-bank, hence, such act on behalf of the petitioner- bank amounts to violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25H of the Act of 1947. Counsel submits that these facts were well appreciated by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award which requires no interference of this Court and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the workman was engaged as a casual worker on daily wages by the petitioner-bank at Tripolia Bazar Branch where he worked for a period of 78 days with effect from 15.12.1992 to 20.09.1993 and thereafter, with a gap of more than two years, he was re-engaged on the same post for a period of 67 days with effect from 26.09.1995 till

07.12.1995. It was the case of the workman before the Tribunal that due to the re-employment of other persons by the petitioner- bank, his services were retrenched. The workman has tried to establish a case before the Tribunal that 4 persons namely Brijesh [2025:RJ-JP:12510] (4 of 5) [CW-3742/2001] Kumar, Suresh Kumar Meena, Rajendra Kumar, Rajendra Solanki were given appointment in the year 1993-1994, and different versions with regard to the appointment of other 4 persons has been made by the respective parties, but both parties have not come with a specific plea with regard to exact date of appointment of these persons before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that above persons were given appointment and the workman was retrenched from service and a direction has been issued for his re-employment. Looking to the fact that the workman has hardly worked for 78 days and 67 days at two different branches of the petitioner-bank in the year 1993-1994 a direction for his re-employment, under such circumstances, is not justified, and the Tribunal could have granted adequate amount of compensation in view of the aforesaid act of the petitioner-bank.

6. In the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in favour of both the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by issuing directions to the petitioner-bank to grant a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman in lieu of his re-employment.

7. Needless to observe, the petitioner-bank would pay the amount of compensation to the workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the workman would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6%, till the date of its actual payment.

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned award stands modified. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:12510] (5 of 5) [CW-3742/2001]

9. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. GARIMA /7 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J