Supervisory writ jurisdiction is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or manifest illegality. It does not permit re-evaluating factual findings of a tribunal, such as the existence of an employer-employee relationship, where the conclusion is supported by sufficient evidence of payment, supervision, and control.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Employer-Management of the Punjab National Bank for the issuance of a writ/writs/or order/orders of direction/directions for quashing the Award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 161 of 2000 whereby the Employer- Management of Punjab National Bank is directed to reinstate and thereby regularize the services of the Workman-Respondent No.3 with all benefits from the date of termination of his services.

2. Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Bank and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, learned counsel for the Union of India.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Bank that the impugned Award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 161 of 2000 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.

It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 was not at all a workman under the erstwhile New Bank of India or the petitioner and as such the entire proceeding is completely without jurisdiction.

It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 is not a Workman and as such the dispute raised by him is not at all an industrial dispute.

It is submitted that a personal driver engaged for the personal services of the executive of erstwhile New Bank of India cannot create an Employer and Employee relationship with the petitioner-Bank.

It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 has miserably failed to prove that he was a Workman under the erstwhile New Bank of India or the Punjab National Bank.

It is submitted that the Tribunal has gravely erred in law since from the very pleadings and the evidence adduced by the Respondent No.3 it was conclusively proved that there never existed any relationship of Employer and Employee either with the erstwhile New Bank of India or with the petitioner-Punjab National Bank and as such the Respondent No.3 was not a Workman as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act.

It is submitted that the settlement dated 08.01.1990 (Ext. W 1) executed and between only the Management of the erstwhile New Bank of India with All India NBI Employees’ Federation, has not arisen out of and in course of conciliation proceeding and hence it is not at all enforceable against the petitioner-Bank and in the aforesaid settlement dated 08.01.1990 (Ext.-W.1) the Government of India was not a party to the same and as such same cannot be enforced against the petitioner-Bank.

It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 had not exhibited any document to establish and prove any relationship of Employer and Employee either with the erstwhile New Bank of India or with the petitioner-Punjab National Bank.

It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Respondent No.3 has not exhibited any documentary proof like appointment letter, attendance register, wages register, transfer order, owner book in the name of the Bank, log book, dismissal order etc. showing any semblance of a relationship of Employer and Employee with the erstwhile New Bank of India or with Punjab National Bank.

It is submitted that Respondent No.3 was the personal driver of the Executive of the New Bank of India and as such his engagement by the said officer of the Bank who in turn paid to the Respondent No.