Reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be inappropriate in certain situations, and compensation may be awarded instead.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma,J. - Background Facts

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award dated 05.05.2014 passed in ID No.02/2014 titled Sh. Narender Bahadur Singh Vs Corporation Bank, whereby, the learned CGIT cum Labour Court directed the respondent bank to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages to the petitioner/workman.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/workman had filed a statement of claim against the respondent bank seeking the relief of reinstatement. The petitioner/workmen had alleged that he was employed by the respondent bank and was placed at Karol Bagh, Delhi branch on the sanctioned post of a Car driver with effect from 01.11.1999. The service of the petitioner/workman was terminated on 13.07.2006 without assigning any reason or cause of action. It was alleged that the respondent bank had neither issued a notice nor complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner/workmen also sent a demand notice to the respondent bank which remained un-responded. The contention of the petitioner/workman is that the petitioner/workman along with the other workman had raised a Charter of Demands for the regularisation of their services and the respondent bank got irked by it and terminated their services. It was also pleaded that the petitioner/workman has remained unemployed since the date of his termination and that he did not get any job despite his best efforts.

3. The respondent bank while contesting the claim of the petitioner/workman denied the relationship of master and servant between the parties. The contention of the respondent bank is that personal car drivers are engaged by the executives of the bank in their personal capacity. There is no cadre of a 'personal car driver' in the respondent bank and as per the policy, whenever the eligible officers engage personal drivers, reimbursement is provided to these officers under the head 'allowances' on the basis of the scale set down by respondent bank. It is also contended that the respondent bank is a Nationalised Bank and its appointment are public appointments based on rules and regulations framed by the bank based on Directives of the Central Government. Thus, the service of the petitioner/workman was never under the supervision and direct control of the respondent bank and he cannot be termed as a 'workman' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned CGIT framed the following issues:-

'1. Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh in terminating the services of Sh. Narender Bahadur Singh, Personal Car Driver w.e.f. 13.07.2006 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

2. Relief '

5. The petitioner/workman in support of his case tendered his affidavit as WW1 and respondent bank produced one Sh. Anjani Kumar, Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank as MW1. Learned CGIT decided the reference in favour of the petitioner/workman and against the respondent bank. Learned CGIT in the impugned Award has inter alia held that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence whenever termination is held illegal. In the instant case, the petitioner/workman was held to be a casual worker and was awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Being aggrieved of this, the petitioner/workman has filed the present writ petition seeking that the impugned award is either set aside or modified to the extent of granting the Petitioner/workman the relief of full back wages as well as reinstatement to his services on the sanctioned post with the respondent bank with retrospective effect.

Contentions of the petitioner/workman

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Ld. CGIT on one hand took note of the statement of the witness produced by the respondent bank who admitted in his cross-examination that the