HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:– Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the award dated 16.01.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No. 20 of 2005/13 (C ) of 2005 by which and whereunder the Tribunal refused to pass an award of reinstatement of the petitioner in service on the grounds that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent no. 3, the Management of Central Bank of India and furthermore, the petitioner could not succeed to establish that he had worked as daily wager in the concerned bank for 240 days or more in a calendar year.

2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the Central Bank of India, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur sent requisition of the names of eligible persons for appointment of peon from the Employment Exchange, Bhagalpur and in response to the aforesaid requisition, the Employment Exchange, Bhagalpur sent the name of the petitioner and four others to above stated bank vide letter no. 26/92/1180 dated 03.09.1992 as it is evident from Annexure-2 to this petition. The petitioner was interviewed and he was selected for the post of peon and accordingly, appointment letter was issued to him and thereafter, he joined the aforesaid bank on 17.09.1992 at Nathnagar Branch of Central Bank of India. At the time of his joining, his appointment letter was taken by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. He continuously worked in the said bank as peon right from 17.09.1992 till 04.10.1996 on which date he was orally terminated by the Branch Manager of the said bank without adopting the mandatory provisions of law. Further case of the petitioner is that he was paid his wages through vouchers though some vouchers were issued in others name but all of a sudden his services was orally terminated on 04.10.1996 which was amount to his retrenchment. At the time of retrenchment, no retrenchment compensation was given to him nor any procedure of retrenchment was adopted though he had already rendered uninterrupted service for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of his termination. After his termination, he represented before the management for his reinstatement with full backwages and also gave legal notice but of no avail and thereafter, he raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) for amicable settlement. The efforts of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) proved futile and accordingly, he sent his report to the Central Government under Section 12(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi referred the dispute vide adjudication order dated 16.09.2003 and sent the following reference—

whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Bhagalpur in terminating the services of Shri Dilip Kumar Mandal is justified and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

3. After getting the aforesaid reference, the Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad registered the aforesaid reference as Reference Case No. 20 of 2005/13 C of 2005 but subsequently, the matter was transferred to Industrial Tribunal Patna under the order of Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. Both parties of the aforesaid dispute filed their respective statements and also adduced their evidences. The Industrial Tribunal, Patna vide award dated 16.01.2007 came to the conclusion that since the petitioner was not in the service of the Management of Central Bank of India, the question of termination of his services does not arise and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, petitioner challenged the aforesaid award in this writ petition.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Central Bank of India and in the said counter affidavit, the concerned bank has supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned award contending that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document