Termination of employment found unlawful under ID Act; reinstatement not automatic; compensation awarded instead.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. The Petitioner-Bank has filed the present Petition challenging the Award dated 18 June 2014 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai passed in Reference No. CGIT-2/64 of 2003. By the impugned Award, the reference is answered partly in the affirmative and the Petitioner-Bank is directed to reinstate the Respondent-Workmen in service with 30% backwages and other consequential benefits with continuity of service. The Tribunal has further directed regularisation of services of the Respondent-Workmen at par with other similarly placed workmen as per their seniority and in accordance with the settlement.

2. Petitioner is a nationalized Bank carrying on banking operations through various branches. Respondents, who are 45 in number, were apparently engaged on daily wages and on day-to-day basis on different branches of the Petitioner-Bank to meet the exigency of service. Their engagements were made in informal manner without subjecting them to any selection process. They were engaged at different points of time during 1990’s and were apparently utilised as Peons in various branches by the respective Bank Managers. In August, 2002, Respondents were discontinued by the Petitioner-Bank. Respondents raised industrial disputes alleging illegal termination. At the behest of the Respondents, the Appropriate Government made Reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai (CGIT) relating to termination of their services. Respondents filed Statement of Claim alleging illegal termination in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (ID Act). The Reference was resisted by the Petitioner by filing Written Statement. Respondents amended their Statement of Claim seeking extension of benefit of Settlement dated 18 March 2008 which apparently provided for absorption of casual/temporary/ad-hoc peons/sweepers who were working as on the date of the settlement. Petitioner filed additional Written Statement resisting the amended Statement of Claim. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Tribunal made Award dated 18 June 2014 partly answering the Reference in the affirmative and directing reinstatement of the Respondents with 30% backwages with consequential benefits and continuity of service. The Tribunal has further directed regularisation of services of the workmen at par with other similarly placed workmen as per their seniority and in accordance with the settlement. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the Petitioner-Bank has filed the present Petition.

3. By order dated 5 August 2015, the Petition has been admitted and the impugned Award has been stayed. During pendency of the Petition, Petitioner issued advertisements for filling up vacancies of sub-staff on 15 December 2015. Some of the Respondents took out Notice of Motion for restraining the Bank from filling up the vacancies. The Motion was rejected by order dated 7 December 2015 directing that steps taken by the Petitioner shall be subject to final hearing of the Petition. This Court made it clear that in the event this Court comes to the conclusion that Respondents are entitled to reinstatement, it would not be open for the Petitioner to take a stand that they had filled up the post in the meantime.

4. It appears that the order dated 5 August 2015 admitting the Petition and staying the Award was challenged b