IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 40375 of 2003(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. K.SASIDHARAN, PADINJAREKOYATH, PADAHARAM, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JOHN, SC, KTWWF BOARD SMT.S.MUMTAZ SRI.M.V.MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 40375 of 2003 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN ALL INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF FEDERATION AND STATE BANK OF INDIA DATED 17.11.1987. EXT.P2: COPY OF BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN ALL INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF FEDERATION AND STATE BANK OF INDIA DATED 16.7.1988 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN ALL INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA SATFF FEDERATION AND STATE BANK OF INDIA DATED 27.10.1988. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN ALL INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF FEDERATION AND STATE BANK OF INDIA DATED 9.1.1991. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS DATED 9.6.1995 BETWEEN THE FEDERATION AND THE STATE BANK OF INDIA BEFORE THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRA) HYDRABAD. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALL INDA STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF FEDERATION AND STATE BANK OF INDIA DATED 30.7.1996. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) HYDRABAD DATED 21.4.1997. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY R1 IN I.A.NO.35/2001 BEFORE R5. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D.35/2001 BEFORE R2. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE AWARD OF R2 IN I.D. 35/2001. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.40375 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Deputy General Manager of the State Bank of India at Thiruvananthapuram. He is challenging Ext.P10 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in I.D. No.35/2001. The issue referred for adjudication was as follows: “Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Trivandrum in relation to their Tiruvalla Branch in the terminating the services of Shri. K. Sasidharan, Temporary Messenger from April, 1997 is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?” By Ext.P10 award, the Tribunal held that the workman shall be given regular appointment in one of the 214 sanctioned posts from the date on which the last of empanelled candidate had got appointment in the regular service. He was also directed to be given full salary and allowances from the date on which the reference was made by the Government of India. The petitioner challenges the award on several grounds, one of which is that the Tribunal went beyond the issue referred for adjudication and W.P.(c) No.40375/03 2 therefore the award is bad. Since I am inclined to accept this contention of the petitioner, I am not going into other contentions on merits raised by the petitioner, since on acceptance of the same the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. 2. The learned counsel for the workman submits that in effect the award is in terms of the reference itself in so far as what has been directed is to give the workman appointment in the management bank. The learned counsel for the workman also raises a contention that there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. He points out that the award was passed on 10.2.2003, which was published in the Gazette dated March 29, 2003 whereas the writ petition is filed only on 18.12.2003 and therefore the writ petition is highly belated. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Regarding the delay, the same has been explained by the petitioner in paragraph 16 of the writ petition thus: “It is most respectfully submitted that as the publication of the award was not intimated to the 2nd respondent Tribunal or to the petitioner bank, the bank could not obtain a copy of the award to challenge the same before this Hon’ble Court, then and there. Petitioners knew about the publication of the award from the notice sent W.P.(c) No.40375/03 3 by the 1st respondent to the petitioner bank on 7.10.2003.” In view of the fact that the reliefs granted in the award of the Tribunal is beyond the scope of the reference, I am inclined to accept the explanation furnished by the petitioner for the delay and therefore I do not find any merit in the contention of the workman that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. 4. As is clear from the issue referred for adjudication which is quoted above, the issue referred for adjudication was the validity of the termination of the services of the workman concerned. In paragraph 14 of the award, the Tribunal has held thus: “In the result an award is passed holding that the workman concerned shall be given regular appointment in one of 124 sanctioned posts from the date on which the last of empanelled candidate had got appointment in the regular service. He shall be given full salary and allowance from the date on which this reference was made by the Government of India. Award is passed accordingly.” The first respondent could not point out any finding anywhere in Ext.P10 award to the effect that the termination of service of Sri. K. Sasidharan, Temporary Messenger from April, 1997 is either justified or unjustified. Without holding that the W.P.(c) No.40375/03 4 termination of service of the workman is unjustified, the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion, it reached in paragraph 14 of the award quoted above. Therefore I am satisfied that the Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of the issue referred for adjudication and for that reason Ext.P10 award is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P10 award and remit the matter back to the 2nd respondent for re-adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the industrial dispute is an old one, the Tribunal shall pass fresh award within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the 2nd respondent does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute now, the 2nd respondent shall transmit the records of the I.D. to the Tribunal/Labour Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on receipt of which that Tribunal having jurisdiction shall comply with the above direction. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.40375/03 5