Back
1998 Supreme(Pat) 84
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
State Bank Of India
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5931 of 1989 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 03, 1998
An employer cannot terminate an employee's services without just cause, and must provide adequate compensation in cases of retrenchment.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25-F - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - JUSTIFICATION - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES - COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The State Bank of India (Bank) challenged an award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, reinstating respondent workman Shiv Shankar Tiwary with back wages and benefits from May 1, 1984, after his dismissal for failing written tests for absorption as a permanent employee.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the Bank's reasons for termination were not justified: (i) Tiwary's absence from the October 1982 test was due to illness, not willful avoidance; (ii) the Bank allowed Tiwary to continue working after failing the January 1974 test, indicating no intent to terminate his services on that basis; and (iii) the compensation offered under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) was inadequate.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bank's termination of Tiwary's services was justified. 2. Whether Tiwary was entitled to reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Bank failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Tiwary willfully avoided the October 1982 test. 2. The Bank's continued employment of Tiwary after the January 1974 test indicated that it did not intend to terminate his services based on that failure. 3. The compensation offered to Tiwary under Section 25-F of the Act was inadequate.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Bank's writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's award reinstating Tiwary with back wages and benefits. The Court also directed the Bank to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to Tiwary and to comply with the Tribunal's award forthwith.
A.K.Ganguly, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) through its Personal Manager challenging an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 158 of 1986. The said award is dated December 9, 1988. By the said award respondent workman Shiv Shankar Tiwary has been reinstated in service with back wages and other benefits available to him from May 1,1984.
2. The reference which was sent for adjudication before the said Tribunal is as follows:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri Shiv Shankar Tiwary, Cashier, Bihta Branch with effect from May 1,1984 is justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
The notice of termination dated May 1,1984 which was issued by the said bank and as a result of which respondent No. 3 was dismissed has also been quoted in the said award. The contents of the said notice is set out below:
"(i) Your failure in written test for absorption of Temporary employees held on January 20,1974.
(ii) Avoiding wilfully to appear in the writ- ten test for absorption of temporary employees held on October 3, 1982 inspite of the fact that you were advised about the test well in advance. In this connection, arrangements are in hand to pay you the retrenchment compensation in terms of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act before the expiry of the notice period."
3. In the award all the material facts which were relevant for adjudication have been set out and noted. It also appears from the facts noted in the said award that against the said notice initially a writ petition was filed by respondent No. 3 before this Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1963 of 1984 but this Court refused to interfere with the said writ petition and dismissed the same with an observation that the workman concerned may seek remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated April 24,1984. Thereafter the Industrial Tribunal was approached on the basis of the reference set out above. As noted above, in the said award the material facts have been set out and discussed and after setting out the relevant facts, the .Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal came to the findings that it was necessary for the concerned workman to qualify in the test for being regularised or made permanent in the Bank s services. However, after reaching the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer while dealing with the reasons contained in the notice of termination came to the conclusion that the plea of Respondent No. 3 that he was unable to appear in the test held on October 30,1982 by the said Bank is a justified plea. In coming to the said conclusion, the findings reached by the said Tribunal are set out below:
"Admittedly the concerned workman was on leave when he had received the notice of the test to be held on October 3,1982. The management has stated in para 9 of the written statement that the concerned workman had submitted medical certificate on resuming duties after test was over. It appears therefore, that the concerned workman had filed a medical certificate regarding his illness and as such the ground of termination of the concerned workman that he was wilfully avoiding to appeal in the written statement for absorption of temporary employees held on October 30,1982 does not appear to be sound conclusion arrived at by the management. There is no evidence in the case on the part of the management to show that the concerned workman had wilfully avoided to appear in the test on the contrary it is admitted that the concerned workman had submitted a medical certificate before the management to show that he was ill and as such he could not appear in the test. The said ground of termination of the services of the concerned workman, therefore, cannot be sustained and cannot be said to be a good ground for termination of the services
