Manager (Now Regional Director) R.B.I vs Gopinath Sharma & Anr

The appellant, The Manager (Now Regional Director), Reserve Bank of India, Mall Road, Kanpur, aggrieved against the final judgment and order dated 4.9.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabd in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35290 of 1996, has filed this appeal. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein and set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and ordered reinstatement on similar post with back wages.

The Central Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur as under:-

On 30.7.1996, an award was passed by the Tribunal rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 on the ground of delay and laches and also on merits holding that since as per evidence adduced before Tribunal, he did not complete the service of 240 days in the Bank, he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act") or the benefit of the judgment of this Court in H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India(supra).

Aggrieved by the rejection, respondent No.1 filed C.M.W.P.No. 35290 of 1996 before the High Court on 4.11.1996. On 4.9.2003, the High Court delivered the judgment allowing the writ petition ordering reinstatement of respondent No.1 with back wages @ 10% from 1976 to 1989 and @ 50% from 1989 till 4.9.2003 (the date of judgment). Aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellant filed the present appeal.

According to the High Court, acquiring higher qualification is not misconduct and hence, dismissal of workman on this ground is wrongful dismissal. The High Court further observed that some of the juniors of respondent No.1 were retained on the ground that they had not acquired higher qualification and that the Bank specifically did not deny this fact and in such a situation if the removal of respondent No.1 is taken to be retrenchment, he would be entitled to relief under Section 25 G of the I.D. Act. It was, therefore, held that the employer-Bank wrongfully terminated the services of respondent No.1 by not including his name in the list prepared after June, 1976 and that the order of the Labour Court deciding the reference against the respondent-workman is illegal and liable to be set aside. As far as, back wages is concerned, the High Court held that the workman is entitled to get nominal wages of 10% and thereafter 50% respectively. In the result, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order of the Tribunal and the action of the management of the Bank in striking out the name of respondent No.1 from the list of approved peon-cum-Farash after June, 1976 and further directed that the respondent must be reinstated and appointed to the similar post.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that respondent No.1 has worked for 58 days on casual basis, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief in his belated claim. The High Court, on erroneous view of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein without taking into account the categoric finding of fact that respondent No.1 had not completed 240 days of service in the Bank and held that this will not make much difference. In our opinion, such a casual approach is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 35290 of 1996 and affirm the order passed by the Tribunal.

In the result, the appeal succeeds. However, there shall be no order as to costs.