Point of Law: Termination of service – Retrenchment – Workman was proved to have worked continuously on daily wage basis for more than five years.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

By way of instant Letters Patent Appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 29.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 663 of 2011, whereby the Award dated 7.9.2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government-cum-Industrial Tribunal-I Chandigarh in Case No. ID-3/2007( for short, “Tribunal”) holding the retrenchment of respondent herein to be bad in law and directing the appellants herein to reinstate the workman with all consequential benefits, has been affirmed.

2. Appellants and Respondent herein shall be referred to as the Bank and workman respectively for the sake of convenience.

3. A glance at the factual background of the case reveals that the workman raised an Industrial Dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) against the Bank. It was alleged that workman remained in continuous employment with New Shimla Branch of the Bank w.e.f 9.6.2000 till 29.7.2005, on payment of Rs. 50/- as daily wage.

She was not allowed to work w.e.f. 29.7.2005 and her services were terminated without any prior notice or salary in lieu thereof, therefore, the workman alleged her retrenchment to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.

4. On 22.1.2007, appropriate Government referred the dispute, under Section 10 of the Act, to the Tribunal for adjudication in following terms:-

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Shimla in terminating the services of Smt. Pooja, Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 29.7.2005 is illegal and unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

5. The Bank did not specifically deny the averment with respect to engagement of workman in the Bank since 9.6.2000. However, the relationship of employer and employee with the workman was denied. It was stated that the workman was, in fact, employed by a contractor, who was awarded a contract to install, operate and maintain a generator set in the concerned branch of the bank. The said contract was stated to have commenced in August, 2002. It was further maintained by the management that the contractor was to be paid Rs. 8200/- per month by the bank and on the asking of the said contractor, a sum of Rs. 700/- per month was being paid to the workman, who was employed to operate the generator set by the contractor. On one hand, the management had taken a specific stand, as noticed above, on the other, the management simultaneously pleaded that the services of the workman were availed by the branch of the bank as casual labour to perform the work of sweeping and cleaning the branch on few occasions only before commencement of the business hours and she was paid for the same on daily basis as and when, she was engaged as such.

6. Learned Tribunal on the basis of material on record including the evidence led by the parties found the defence raised by the management as fallacious. The workman was held to be in continuous employment of the bank from 9.6.2000 to 29.7.2005. The termination of workman was held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The management was directed to reinstate the workman with all consequential benefits.

7. Learned Single Judge of this Court, while deciding the challenge raised by the bank to the award passed by the Tribunal, held findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal to be in accordance with the material on record and thus, affirmed the award impugned by way of CWP No. 663 of 2011.

8. Perusal of the grounds raised by the appellants in the instant Appeal reveal that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Award passed by the learned Tribunal have been assailed being not inconformity with the material on record. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged broadly on the ground that the relationship of employer and employee has wrongly been held to exist between the bank and the workman, whereas the workman was proved to be the employee of the contract