JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. Punjab and Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employer’) is aggrieved and has challenged award dated 26.03.2010 passed by respondent No.2-Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh [‘Tribunal’] in so far as it relates to respondent No.4 [‘workman’].

2. Briefly stated the facts, leading to the filing of instant petition, as are gatherable from the impugned award, are that the workman moved an application before respondent No.3 on 16.05.2005 stating therein that he was engaged by the Branch Manager of the employer as peon on temporary basis on 04.10.1989 and continued as such till June 1993 and that he had rendered services of about 400 days with the employer. It was submitted by the workman that as per the practice and scheme of the Bank in vogue, a panel of temporary peons engaged by the Bank in its J&K region had been drawn in which the name of workman figured at S.No.1. It was further the contention of the workman that the Branch Manager concerned threatened the workman to disengage him to accommodate some other person. The Branch Manager concerned executed his threat and, accordingly, disengaged the workman from the M.C. Khalsa High School, Jammu without adopting any due course of law and accommodated his blue eyed person.

3. Respondent No.3 issued notice to the employer. Objections were filed by the employer. Respondent No.3, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the sides and having failed in the process of conciliation, referred the matter to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for making appropriate referral of the dispute to the competent Forum. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India accepted the recommendations of respondent No.3 and referred the dispute to the Tribunal with the following reference:

“Whether the action of the Management of Punjab and Sind Bank i.e. Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Gurdaspur and Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, M.C. Khalsa School, Jammu Branch in Terminating the services of Sh. Rashpal Singh S/o Sh. S. Aya SINGH, Ex. Temporary peon posted in M.C. Khalsa School Branch as per the Bank’s first Bipartite Settlement signed on 19.10.1996 was justified, if not, what relief the Workman is entitled and from which date.”

4. The employer and the workman both appeared before the Tribunal. The workman filed his claim raising similar pleas as he had raised in his application before respondent No.3 on 16.05.2005. The claim of the workman was opposed by the employer who in its written statement denied the relief claimed by the workman on identical grounds which it had taken before respondent No.3. It was pleaded by the employer that the claim put forth by the workman was time barred and was otherwise not tenable, for, neither the engagement of the workman was against any sanctioned post, nor it had been made by the competent authority. The engagement of the workman was on need basis and as per the requirement. It was also denied by the employer that the workman had completed 240 days of service within a period of one year. The preparation of panel/seniority list of daily wagers by the Bank as was claimed by the workman was also denied. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

5. The Tribunal considered the reference made in the case of the workman along with four other references and concluded that so far as the case of the workman was concerned, it was a special case which would require the Tribunal to protect his right to reinstatement. The reference was, thus, answered and the employer was directed to reinstate the services of the workman within one month from the date of publication of award within one month from the date of publication of the award and treat the workman in the same way as other persons out of the seniority list had been treated. The Tribunal, however, held the workman entitled to back wages only from the date he had raised the industrial dispute.