DERHA RAM VERMA Vs. CHAIRMAN, BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order/award dtd. 10/12/2013 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, (for short 'CGIT') Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/152/92 whereby the petitioner was permitted to join his duties in the establishment of respondent No.1, but he was not granted back wages for the period from 20/8/1991 to 10/12/2013.

(2.) Facts of the case leading to this petition is that the petitioner was employed as Sweeper cum Waterman in Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 17/12/1980 and he continued to work there till 8/4/1984. Thereafter he was suffering from mental illness and was receiving treatment from DK Hospital, Raipur, hence, he could not attend his duties for long. After he was declared fit, he reported for duty on 20/8/1991. However, he was not permitted to join his duties by respondent No.1 informing him that he has abandoned the service. On an application filed by the petitioner, reference was made to the CGIT, Jabalpur vide letter dtd. 3/7/1992 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'). It is alleged by the petitioner/workman that he was neither served with charge sheet nor provided with any opportunity of hearing. He had completed more than 240 days of service prior to his termination, hence, the termination of his services amounts to illegal retrenchment, Sec. 25-F of the ID Act was not complied with. Illness of the petitioner was informed to the Manager of the concerned Bank, despite that without conducting any enquiry or providing any opportunity of hearing, his services were terminated illegally.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide impugned order dtd. 10/12/2013, the CGIT, Jabalpur has held that the petitioner/workman was working as part time Sweeper cum Waterman with respondent No.1 establishment and Provident Fund was also deducted which has been proved by the documents filed by the petitioner/workman. The learned Tribunal further held that services of the workman were terminated without following due process of issuing charge sheet, holding enquiry and further vide Ex-W-6, the petitioner/workman was informed that he will not be allowed to join his duties, therefore, petitioner's claim to join the duties had been allowed by learned CGIT, but not granting back wages is against settled preposition of law. In this regard, he placed reliance in the judgment of Pradeep vs. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. and Ors., (2022) 3 SCC 683 and Gowramma C (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Manager (Personnel) Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd. and Anr. (2022) 11 SCC 794