Madhya Pradesh High Court
Regional Manager Central Bank Of India vs Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu on 1 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 22328 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL
OFFICE 9, ARERA HILLS JAIL ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHINAV KHARDIKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU S/O PHOOLCHANDRA SAHU R/O
SHAKTI NAGAR BARELI DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT THOUGH SERVED) -----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Reserved on :- 23.02.2024
Pronounced on :- 01.03.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Notices were issued to respondent/workman but he has chosen not to appear
before this Court. Vide office note dated 20.02.2017, the respondent has been treated as
served. Thus, arguments on behalf of the petitioner/management were heard and the case
is now being decided by this court.
2. The present petition calls into the question, the award dated 12.01.2015 passed
by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short
'CGIT').
3. By the said award, the CGIT has ordered the payment of compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.
4. The brief facts of the case as canvassed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/management are that the respondent/workman claimed to have been illegally
retrenchment by the petitioner without compliance of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes
Act. The matter was referred by the appropriate government to the CGIT after failure of
conciliation proceedings. The dispute that was referred to the CGIT was whether the
action of management in terminating the services of respondent/workman with effect
from 01.09.1996 is legal and justified, so also the consequential relief.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/management that in the
Statement of Claim filed before the CGIT, the respondent/workman had alleged that he
was appointed against the vacant post of peon in Branch of petitioner/Bank situated at
Bareli, District Raisen on 01.01.1990. It was further alleged by the respondent/workman
he has been terminated by oral order dated 01.09.1996 by the management without any
disciplinary action. He had completed more than 240 days of service in the last calender
year. Thus, his termination amounts to illegal retrenchment in terms of Section 25-F of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the reply to the said Statement
of Claims though the employment of the respondent/workman in Bareli Branch of the
Bank was admitted, but the working of 240 days as alleged by the respondent/workman
were not admitted by the management of the Bank. By referring to para 7 of the reply
filed before the CGIT, so also para 3 of the impugned award dated 12.01.2015, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was engaged for very
short spans in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1996. These spans of working days
were not more than 78 days in any of these years. He was paid for the days on which he
w a s engaged. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/management that the respondent/workman was not a permanent or semi-
permanent employee, but was engaged on fixed term of contract.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Mohd. Rafi
reported in 2009 (11) SCC 522. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the onus lies on the workman to establish the period of engagement of the workman. It is
argued that it was the duty of the workman to prove his own case and the CGIT could
have not drawn any presumption of working for 240 days as mentioned in para 7 of the
impugned award passed by the CGIT.
8. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of an interim
order of stay dated 05.12.2016, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of
compensation along with interest before the CGIT.
9. The respondent/workman in the present case had made a specific averment that
he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in the establishment of the petitioner
in last calender year. Thus, he had made specific averment required in terms of Section
25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, it was also pleaded that many workmen engaged after
respondent/workman have been retained in service but the services of the respondents
have been dispensed with.
10. Upon perusal of the record of CGIT, it is evident that the petitioner/Bank had
come out with specific case and indicated the working days of the workman in each year
from 1990 to 1996. It was also pleaded that the workman was given payment for
whatever days he had worked. Such a specific averment could not have been made
without there being any record or some record in possession of the management because
in absence of any record, such type of specific averment giving out exact count of days
could not have been made by the management.
11. The same count of dates is also mentioned in the impugned award Annexure-
P/1 in para 3 which is based on such specific pleading of the management. Upon perusal
of record of the CGIT, it is also evident that the workman had filed application dated
07.02.2008 before CGIT, wherein it was mentioned that record must be in possession of
management relating to services of the workman and the attendance register and salary
register of Bareli Branch from 01.01.1990 to 01.01.1996 be summoned from the
management. The record of CGIT indicates that this application was replied on
08.05.2008 and it was mentioned that no record is available with the management because
whatever work was taken, payment was made to the workman at the relevant time. The
record of CGIT also indicates that thereafter vide order dated 26.08.2008, the CGIT had
directed to file affidavit of some officer of the Bank in that regard. An affidavit dated
14.11.2008, executed by the Regional Manager of Central Bank of India is available with
record of the CGIT. The said affidavit also mentioned that the Bank does not have any
record in its possession which may contain the name of Santosh Sahu in any record of
attendance, salary or muster roll.
12. Having taken specific pleadings regarding working days of the workman and
thereafter taking about-turn and stating that the management does not have any record, in
the opinion of this Court, the CGIT does not appear to have erred in relying on statement
of the workman that he has worked for 240 days in the calender year. The CGIT has also
recorded that the witnesses of the management were not produced for cross-examination
and their affidavit evidence could not be taken into consideration. The workman could no
get opportunity to cross-examine management witnesses on the aspect of working days.
13. The facts of the present case as culled from perusal of the record of CGIT
clearly shows that it was a case of suppression of relevant record by the management and
thus, CGIT does not appear to have erred in relying on statement of the workman to hold
that he had worked for 240 days in last calender year. The workman had led his evidence
and discharged his duty in terms of Section 25-B and Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes
Act. The onus thereafter shifted on the petitioner/employer to have disputed the allegation
of the workman. The Labour Court, therefore does not appear to have erred in accepting
evidence of the respondent/workman.
14. The same view has been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P
No.5064 of 2011 decided on 14.02.2014.
15. In view thereof the conclusion arrived at by the CGIT does not appear to be
erroneous. The CGIT has taken note of the fact that the respondent/workman was not
regular employee and was a causal employee. Considering his length of service, the
CGIT had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement
and back wages.
16. As no error is found in the reasoning adopted by the CGIT, no interference is
called for in the present petition. The impugned award Annexure-P/1 passed by the
CGIT is confirmed.
17. The present writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
