IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT The Regional Manager Bank of Baroda Jaipur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Jaipur & Another (DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.73/2001) D. B. Civil Special Appeal under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance,1949 against the judgment dated 5-12-2000 of learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3134/2000. Date of Judgment: August 06, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. R.K.Kala, for the appellant. Mr. Suresh Kashyap, for the respondent. BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE Shiv Kumar Sharma,J.) The appellant Bank of Baroda (for short `Bank') has called in question the order of learned Single Judge dated December 5, 2000 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the award dated November 25, 1999 of learned Central Industrial Tribunal (for short `Tribunal') whereby the workman was ordered to be reinstated, was upheld. 2. The workman claiming to be an employee of Chomu Branch of the Bank for the period January 2, 1995 to September 21, 1995 raised dispute regarding his termination from September 21, 1995. The Central Government vide reference dated August 29, 1997 referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:- “Whether the action of the Management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Shri Arjun Lal Mali s/o Bodu Ram Mali with effect from 21/9/95 without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act,1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?” 3. The learned Tribunal vide award dated November 25, 1999 held that the termination of the workman vide order dated September 21, 1995 was violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short `ID Act') as such the same was illegal and unjustified. The Tribunal ordered the Bank to reinstate the workman with continuity of service along with back wages to the extent of 60 percent. 4. The appellant Bank challenging the award of the Tribunal dated November 25, 1999 preferred the writ petition. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that since the workman had worked for 240 days including sundays and other holidays, he was entitled to protection under section 25-F of ID Act. Learned Single Judge also considered the list of temporary staff members of the Bank dated May 22, 1993, checked by officers of the Bank on May 24, 1993, which was prepared for recruitment and absorption of temporary staff members and held that the contention of Bank that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Bank and the respondent could not be accepted. 5. Learned counsel vociferously criticsed the impugned findings and urged that the workman was engaged on daily rate basis as a casual, adhoc, temporary employee to meet the exigency of the work and his appointment was against the provisions of sub staff where the Regional Manager is empowered to appoint after following the due process. The workman was engaged by the Branch Manager and the total period of service of workman was only 207 days. As such the workman had no right for consideration for re-employment. It is further contended that a daily wager has no right to the post. The workman had worked for a period of less than 240 days and no salary was paid to him for sundays and holidays. Reliance is placed on Bank of India Vs. Tarun Kr.Biswan [2007(5) SLR 1]. In that case the workmen failed to discharge the burden that they had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year. The Supreme Court in such a situation observed in para 11 thus:- “As noted above, the writ petitioners have accepted that they have not completed 240 days of work.” 6. Other judicial pronouncements have also been placed for our perusal. We see no good reason to multiply the case law. In Intra Court Appeal concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below cannot be interfered with. The learned Labour Court had proceeded in its parameters and the learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition in its supervisory jurisdiction. We see no illegality in the order of learned Single Judge in view of ratio propounded in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003)3 SCC 524 wherein the Apex Court observed thus:- “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 7. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs. (Mahesh Bhagwati),J.(Shiv Kumar Sharma)J. arn/