Civil Writ Petition No. 5683 of 2009 ***** State Bank of India versus Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industry Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ***** The State Bank of India is a petitioner in this case and has filed this writ petition to impugn the award dated 05.09.2008, Annexure P-1 and subsequent order dated 6.03.2009, Annexure P-4. One Om Parkash was working as canteen employee under the Local Implementation Committee of Kistwar Branch. The case set up by the Bank is that this is totally separate and distinct entity from the Bank. Said Om Parkash had raised a demand before the Assistant Labour Commissioner when he was not allowed to work. The Bank filed written statement with the specific stand that Local Implementation Committee was a necessary and proper party being separate and distinct entity. It was also pleaded that Om Parkash was never employed as Messenger. The case was fixed before the Lok Adalat, where Chief Manager made a statement on the basis of which Om Parkash, respondent withdrew the reference. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed. Subsequently, the petitioner-Bank moved an application for review of the order pleading that the respondent was not the employee of the Bank and the Civil Writ Petition No. 5683 of 2009 -2- Manager was not authorised to make statement binding the Bank. The prayer, however, was declined on the ground that the Tribunal had become functus offico. The Bank had, accordingly, filed writ petition before this Court to challenge the award passed by the tribunal. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is pointed out by way of affidavit that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Manager, who had given a statement for taking the respondent-Om Parkash back in service. As per the counsel for the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings are in the progress against the said manager for having made statement without authority. Since the dispute relates to the status of the workman and the Bank is even denying the relationship of master or servant, , it would be appropriate to remand the case before the Tribunal to decide the same afresh and on merit. From the stand taken by the Bank in the written statement filed before the Tribunal, it is to be noted that the respondent workman is being made to suffer the consequences of fault on the part of the Bank. The respondent- workman cannot made to suffer in this manner. Accordingly, he would deserve to be compensated. While setting aside the impugned award on the grounds as noted above and remanding the case back to the Tribunal, it is directed that the Bank would compensate respondent No. 2 by paying sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 01.09.2010. The Bank would deposit the requisite amount on the said date. The Tribunal will take up reference only if this amount is deposited and disbursed to Civil Writ Petition No. 5683 of 2009 -3- the respondent-workman. The Tribunal would be at liberty to decide the claim of the respondent in accordance with law. July 27, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE