HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 23658 of 2005 DATED: 09.02.2011 Between: Dena Bank .. Petitioner And 1. Dena Bank Employees Union 2. Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This writ petition is directed against the Award dated 06.05.2005 made in I.D. No. 51 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the dispute referred under Sections 2(A) and 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) seeking to resolve the following issue: “Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sh.Narsimloo Ex-Badli Peon with effect from 02.02.1995 without following Section 25-F of the Act is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?” was answered in favour of the workman and Dena Bank was directed to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service but without any back-wages. The writ petitioner is the management of Dena Bank and the 1st respondent is Dena Bank Employees Union. It appears that the workman, who worked as Badli Peon in Tandur Branch of Dena Bank served the organisation from November, 1989 to July, 1991 and again from 28.08.1992 to 02.02.1995 continuously. While so, his services were terminated orally with effect from February, 1995. Therefore, the Employees Union of Dena Bank raised a dispute and ultimately it was referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad for answering the above issue. It was the case of the workman that the Employees Union held discussions with Dena Bank at all India level in empanelling Badli Peons and absorbing the employees, who have completed 240 days of service and an agreement to that effect was also executed on 25.09.1992. Since the workman had completed more than 240 days, the termination of his service in the month of February amounts to violation of the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act. The management of Dena Bank filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the Employees Union and stated that the workman was only a Badili Worker and he was appointed for a specific period of time. Before the Labour Court, WWS.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.W1 to W15 were marked on behalf of the 1st respondent-Employees Union and MWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked on behalf of the management of Dena Bank. After considering the entire material or record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had put in more than 240 days of service before his services could be terminated on 02.02.1995 orally, thus, the management of Dena Bank had violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, and the termination of the petitioner as Badli Peon was arbitrary and illegal, and directed the petitioner- management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the management of Dena Bank has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner-management has strenuously contended that absolutely there was no initial burden discharged by the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the Bank. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in 2004(8) SCC 161 and AIR 2004 4179. However, this Court does not feel it necessary to go into all the details, but holds that it is suffice to notice from paragraph Nos.10.13 to 11.03 of the impugned Award, dated 06.05.2005 which read as under: “10.13: The crucial question is whether the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination i.e. for the year 1994-1995. It is not in dispute that the workman worked till February, 1995. Whether he has put up 240 days from 1994 to 2/1995 is to be verified. 10.14: In order to establish this fact the petitioner has produced Ex.W13. It is a savings bank passbook of the petitioner maintained by the respondent-bank with Account No.4287. 10.15: I have minutely gone through the contents of the passbook. It was opened on 25.09.1992 and the notings are clearly establishing that from July 1993, the petitioner had continuously worked till January, 1995 and he was terminated in February, 1995. Monthly salary of Rs.150/- was deposited for every month from 7/1993 to 1/1995. Entries of deposit of Rs.150/- per month is clearly establishing that the bank is depositing the salary to the petitioner regularly in the bank. 10.16: MW2 who is working as manager with the bank has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that the workman was engaged from 11/1989 to 7/1991 and again from 28.08.1992 he continuously worked up to 2/1995 even after Ex.W7 letter. 10.17: Therefore, the evidence of WW1, MW2 and the contents of Ex.W6, W13, M1 are clearly establishing that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year prior to his termination. 11.00: The Hon’ble High Court has given one more opportunity to the banker i.e. respondent herein to produce any document to prove that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in the relevant period. 11.01: The Hon’ble High Court has clearly observed that banker has wantonly did not produce the records and the workman has discharged his initial burden by marking Ex.W13 but the management did not produce any evidence for the relevant 240 days and with the above observation, the Hon’ble High Court has remitted back the matter to the Tribunal to give one more opportunity to banker to lead the evidence on the aspect that the workman had not worked 240 days continuously during one calendar year preceding the date of termination. 11.02: Accordingly, the opportunity was given to the respondent management to produce the evidence. The respondent did not produce any evidence except filing the affidavit where in it is stated that the leave register maintained for the regular employees disclosing that the petitioner was appointed only during the leave of the sub-staff as such the leaves of the regular employees may be considered so that the employment of petitioner will be established. It is absurd. The engagement of workman for 240 days is not depending upon leaves of the regular employees. The said register is not disclosing the employment of workman. 11.03: When Ex.W13 - savings bank account passbook maintained by the respondent is establishing that the respondent was depositing salary of Rs.150/- for every month from 7/1993 till 1/1995, the burden lies on the management to produce the relevant registers. In Ex.M1, the bank has clearly stated that the workman has worked for specific number of days from 1989 to 1993 and statement was also given and the bank was able to give such a statement from 1989 to 1993. Then, it is absurd to say that the records from 5/1993 till 2/1995 are not available. It is nothing but suppressing the records to mislead the Tribunal or to defeat the legal claims of the workman, hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent in this regard.” From the above, it is clear that under Ex.W13 – passbook, the workman had discharged his initial burden to show that he worked continuously and he was paid salary, which was deposited in his account and the entries to that effect were also made in his passbook regularly which clearly reveals that he worked for more than 240 days. Though the petitioner-management was given an opportunity to lead evidence, it did not adduce any evidence except filing an affidavit wherein it is mentioned that leave register is maintained for the regular employees disclosing that the petitioner was appointed only during the leave of the sub-staff, as such, the leaves of the regular employees should be considered so that the employment of the petitioner will be established. This submission made by the management was rightly rejected by the Labour Court as absurd. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the workman has discharged his initial burden of proving that he worked for 240 days in Dena Bank and the findings recorded by the Labour Court as noticed above clearly indicate that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days. Therefore, the termination of services of the workman by the petitioner-management of Dena Bank without issuing any notice or granting compensation to the workman is a clear infringement of the provisions contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act, and the same, in my considered opinion, is erroneous. Hence, the findings arrived at by the Labour Court directing the petitioner-management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service but without back-wages is perfectly justified and no interference is warranted by this Court. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merits, and the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 9th February, 2011 bcj