The court established that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic for ad-hoc workers and that compensation may suffice if formal appointment procedures are not followed.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant writ petitions under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India (“Constitution” hereinafter) has been filed by the respective petitioners challenging the award dated 14th February, 2007 (“impugned award” hereinafter) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in Industrial Dispute bearing ID No. 158/1999.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Sh. Manoj Kumar (“the workman” hereinafter) was engaged vide Regional Office Letter no. RMD/STAFF/IR dated 15th October, 1993 on an ad-hoc basis as a 'sweeper' in the Punjab National Bank (“PNB” hereinafter), from 30th September, 1993 till 31st December, 1997.

3. Thereafter, the branch manager of the PNB terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 22nd January, 1998, subsequent to which, the workman wrote a letter dated 23rd January, 1998 to the Chief Manager, PNB for allowing him to continue working in the aforesaid branch.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid circumstances, the workman raised an industrial dispute bearing ID No. 158/1999, before the learned Tribunal, seeking reinstatement of his services along with full back wages w.e.f. 22nd January, 1998 as he was wrongfully terminated without issuance of a notice of termination as mandated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act” hereinafter).

5. Subsequently, the PNB raised an objection to the aforesaid industrial dispute, alleging that the same is not an industrial dispute in terms of Section 2(k) of the ID Act as the applicant therein is not a workman as per Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Further, it was contested that the workman was not appointed by PNB, therefore, no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Tribunal framed issues surrounding the dispute and consequently passed the impugned award by holding that the said termination was illegal and the workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages w.e.f. 22nd January, 1998. However, the learned Tribunal found no force in the claim of the workman seeking relief of regularization and thus, the same was decided in favour of PNB.

7. Aggrieved by the grant of relief of reinstatement with full back wages, PNB has filed the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 4770/2007, seeking setting aside of the impugned award, whereas, the workman is challenging the same in writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 5770/2007, to the extent that the findings of the learned Tribunal qua denying regularization to the workman may be set aside.

8. For proper adjudication of captioned petitions, this Court finds it apposite to deal with the issues of law raised herein vide a common judgment.

PLEADINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

9. The PNB has filed the instant writ petition bearing WP(C) No.4770/2007 on the following grounds:

“1) Because the award passed by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court dated 14.2.2007 directing reinstatement & full back wages is illegal and contrary to the constitution bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 .

II) Because the findings & conclusions recorded by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court it is contradictory inasmuch on the one hand he