(Ranjit More)

The appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17th December, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.975 of 2009 whereby, the respondent’s petition was allowed by setting-aside the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 22nd January, 2009. Consequently, the reference CGIT 2/37 of 2007 came to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

The appellant in pursuance of the personal interview conducted by a Panel of office-bearers of the respondent was offered appointment as Personal Financial Consultant by letter dated 27th April, 2006. The appellant accepted the assignment and communicated her acceptance to the respondent on 28th April, 2006 and accordingly she was appointed vide letter of appointment dated 2nd May, 2006 on a permanent post on a guaranteed Pay of Rs.2,80,000/- per annum. The letter of appointment stipulated that the appellant was being placed in the management cadre of the respondent at Band 8-B. The addendum to the letter of appointment contained a declaration that the appellant had read and accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment. The service of the appellant, however, was terminated by letter dated 23rd June, 2006 issued under the signature of Associate Manager, Human Resources on account of improper behaviour and conduct with the customer, Line Manager and fellow colleagues. The appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Executive Committee of the respondent. Since, there was no response from the respondent, the appellant sent legal notice to the respondent on 22nd July, 2006. The respondent gave reply to the said notice on 9th August, 2006 thereby denying the appellant’s allegations. The appellant, thereafter, approached the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and filed conciliation proceedings vide representation dated 30th August, 2008. The Ministry initiated proceedings for conciliation in which the respondent filed its written statement. The Ministry after considering the appellants representation and respondent’s reply by its order dated 19th April, 2007 refused to make reference on the ground that the appellant has not completed 240 days of service and hence, no dispute subsists. The appellant challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 4529 of 2007. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that mere non-completion of 240 days of service would not be a ground for refusal to make a reference. The High Court directed the Ministry of Labour to refer the matter and accordingly reference has been forwarded to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute i.e. “Whether the action of the respondent in terminating the services of the appellant w.e.f. 24th June, 2006 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?” The appellant filed a statement of claim at exhibit “3”. The appellant stated that the appointment related to management of Personal Banking Customers which forms part and parcel of the business activity of the Bank. The appellant has further stated that she was answerable to the Branch Manager and was required to work under the instructions and control of the Branch Manager. The statement of claim which was originally filed did not contain averments that the duties of the appellant were clerical in nature. However, in rejoinder filed before the Industrial Tribunal the appellant set up the case that the work which was being rendered was “basically clerical in nature”. The appellant stated that being a Personal Financial Consultant, she had no authority or power to authorize or take any decision to complete a transaction. The Personal Financial Consultant and the Regional Head were separated in hierarchy by a Line Manager, Branch Manager and Cluster Head. The appellant claimed that all the Personal Financial Consultants reported to the Line Manager and were not involved in any of the decision making processes or in the discharge of