THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL No. 899 OF 2011 DATED:16-11-2011 Between: Dena Bank, a Banking Company, incorporated under provisions of the Banking Companies Act, rep., by its Chief Manager, having its Head Office at C-10, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai and Regional Office at Ganga Nagar North, Bangalore … Appellant And Dena Bank Employees Union, C/o. Dena Bank, Bank Street, Hyderabad 500 001 rep., by its General Secretary and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL No. 899 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellant – Bank is aggrieved by an order, dated 09-02-2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23658 of 2005. 2. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge directed the reinstatement of the respondent – workman with continuity of service but without back wages. In doing so, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Industrial Tribunal’) on 06-05-2005 made in I.D No. 51 of 1997. 3. The reference made to the Tribunal reads as follows: “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?” 4. Initially, an award was made against the respondent – workman, but the union preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 36555 of 1998 which was disposed of by a learned single Judge by an order dated 20-08-2004. 5. While disposing of the earlier writ petition, the learned single Judge remanded the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal and gave an opportunity to the appellant – Bank to lead evidence only on the question whether the respondent – workman had worked for 240 days continuously during the last calendar year. 6. It appears that before the Industrial Tribunal the respondent – workman had filed enough evidence to show that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination. One of the documents relied upon is Ex.W-13 which was the savings account passbook maintained by the respondent – workman which showed that salary was being deposited in his account on regular monthly basis. 7. Insofar as the appellant – Bank is concerned, despite an opportunity having been granted by the learned single Judge in the earlier writ petition, it did not produce any evidence to controvert the material brought forth by the respondent – workman to show that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year. 8. In view of these circumstances and the material brought on record, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award in favour of the respondent – workman. 9. The appellant – Bank then challenged the award by filing a writ petition which came to be disposed of by the order under appeal. 10. It is submitted before us by learned counsel for the appellant – Bank that the burden is on the respondent – workman to show that he had actually worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months and that there was non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11. As far as we are concerned, both the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge had gone into the facts of the case and had relied upon the material on record including EX.W-13 which showed that the respondent – workman had put in more than 240 days of work as required by the statute. On the other hand, the appellant – Bank did not produce any material to controvert the facts sought to be established by the respondent – workman. This was despite the opportunity granted to the appellant – Bank. 12. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal or with the finding of fact arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal as well as by the learned single Judge. 13. There is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. 14. The interim application also stands dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 16-11-2011 ks