IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5717 of 2008 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, having its Central Office at Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and a Branch inter alia at town Muzaffarpur – through the Branch Manager, Amgola Branch, P.O. Ramna, District – Muzaffarpur, holding Power of Attorney on behalf of Central Bank of India. ------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Shram Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Rajan Kumar Tripathi @ Ranjan Kumar Tripathi, son of Sri Girija Kishore Tripathi, resident of village – Karanpura, P.O.. Chapra, P.S. Kanti, District Muzaffarpur. ---------- Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma For the State :AAG-5. -------- 4. 23.06.2009 Central Bank of India, the Management, has challenged the award dated 18th December, 2007 passed in Reference Case no. 5 (C) of 2005 by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna. The award has been answered in favour of the workman and an order for reinstatement has been recorded on the ground that the workman has been illegally retrenched without following due process of law under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The short facts of the case is that respondent no.3 was one of the persons who came to be engaged on a casual basis in what is known as Amgola Branch at Muzaffarpur. He was 2 allowed a sum of Rs.35/- per day for his work which later came to be enhanced to Rs.40/- per day. Subsequently he was removed for which an industrial dispute was raised. The terms of reference read as follows: “whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur in terminating the services of Shri Ranjan Tripathi @ Sri Ranjan Kumar Tripathi is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the above workman is entitled?” 3. The party contested the issue. Evidence came to be led and after formulating the two issues which are reflected in paragraph-5 of the award, the Tribunal came to a considered opinion that the removal of the workman was not in accordance with law and he having put more than 240 days of continuous service was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The findings on the questions are recorded in para 6 to para 10. 4. Contention of the learned counsel representing the management is that Tribunal has prima facie relied on only one letter as evidence which had been issued by the then Branch Manager, contained in annexure-2. 3 Though it indicates that respondent No.3 along with two other persons had worked with the concerned branch for many a years and their utilization was not on regular basis still it was made the foundation for holding that the workman had worked for 240 days in a year. This, according to him, is not good enough to allow relief in favour of the workman. He further submits that there is no occasion for the Tribunal to pass an order to regularize the services of the workman because even for the sake of argument, he was only a daily wager and he cannot be given higher status than that of daily wager. 5. Learned counsel representing the workman, however, submits that the workman has been able to discharge his onus of establishing that he has rendered 240 days of continuous service and there is material on record in this regard and this aspect has not been disproved by the management by bringing any other evidence which can be termed to be clinching in nature. Merely reliance on a few sentence of deposition on behalf of the Branch Manager which also is contradictory in nature and does not disprove the existence 4 of the communication contained in annexure-2, in no way supports the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner/management. 6. Learned counsel for the workman also relies on a decision rendered in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and others, 1994 (2) PLJR 249. This decision was pass in similar circumstances upholding the award in favour of the workman. It has also held that merely because employment was illegal or irregular the same will not bar the tribunal from holding that retrenchment was illegal. Case of the workman, respondent No.3 is duly covered by the ratio of the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra). 7. Learned counsel for the management further submits that keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench decision as well as the decision rendered in the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1, the order of the tribunal requires to be interfered with. 8. The Court is of the considered opinion that the ratio of the decisions relied 5 by the Management in the above cases have no relevance so far as testing of the legality or otherwise of the award is concerned. The Court categorically comes to a considered opinion that Tribunal has answered all the questions and issues which was raised and formulated and in absence of any illegality it does not require any interference. 9. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. 10. Before parting it is however clarified that the award of the Tribunal in no way confers upon the workman a higher status than what he had enjoyed as daily wager, at the time of retrenchment. The direction of the Tribunal will be read in light of what has been observed in the above part of the order. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)