Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, Sandeep Moudgil, JJ.
State Bank Of India - Appellant
Versus
Lalit Joshi & Ors. – Respondents
LPA No. 1135 of 2019 (O&M) and LPA No. 1156 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-02-2022

Advocates:
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of employees must adhere to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the violation of statutory provisions renders the termination illegal.

Headnote:
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - [Canteen Waiters - Employer-Employee Relationship - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25(G)]
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the termination of canteen waiters employed by the State Bank of India. The workmen were terminated without compensation, and the issue revolved around the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the violation of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the workmen were engaged as canteen waiters by the bank, and their termination violated Section 25(G) of the Act. The court also noted that the bank failed to produce evidence to justify the termination and that the findings of the Tribunal were based on correct appreciation of pleadings and evidence.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the relationship of employer-employee existed between the parties and whether the termination of the workmen was illegal. The court also considered the violation of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the workmen fell within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act, and the termination without compensation and in violation of Section 25(G) was illegal. The court also emphasized the principles of estoppel and res judicata in relation to the re-agitation of the issue.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the findings of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. The pending miscellaneous applications were rendered infructuous.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Moudgil, J. - CM No.1842 LPA of 2020 in LPA No. 1156 of 2019

2. The present application under order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151of CPC is to bring on record the legal representatives of Som Dutt (since deceased), applicant-respondent no.1.

3. Heard.

4. Applicants i.e Parveen (widow), Inderprasth Mehta and Mohit Mehta (both sons), as mentioned in para 4 of the application, are impleaded as legal representatives, subject to all just exceptions.

5. The application is accordingly allowed.

6. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

LPA No. 1135 of 2019 and LPA No. 1156 of 2019

7. Since the common questions of law and fact are involved in the two LPAs i.e LPA No.1135 of 2019, "State Bank of India versus Lalit Joshi and others" and LPA No.1156 of 2019, "State Bank of India versus Som Dutt (deceased) through LRs and others", the same are being decided by the common order, however, the facts are being taken from LPA No. 1135 of 2019 whereas the date of engagement in service as well as termination from service are identical in both appeals.

8. The appellant - State Bank of India has preferred the instant intra court appeal being aggrieved against the Award and the order dated 30.04.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which the writ petitions preferred by the State Bank of India were dismissed upholding the aforesaid Award dated 13.08.2018, passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), Chandigarh and it was ordered that Award passed by the Tribunal below be implemented without any delay.

9. The vital question to be adjudicated in these appeals, as to whether the relationship of employer - employee exists, revolves around the fact that the workmen (respondent no.1 in both appeals) joined the service as Canteen Waiter on 01.01.1990 at monthly wages of Rs.350/- per month with the duty hours from 09:30 am to 05:30 pm. Their services were, however, dispensed with on 27.07.1995 and juniors to the respondent no.1 - workmen were absorbed in violation of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') as well as against the principle of "last come, first go". Since the compensation was also not paid as required under the Act of 1947, a demand notice was served upon the appellant - Management praying for setting aside the retrenchment with a direction to reinstate workmen in service with full back wages.

10. The Tribunal below, vide its Award dated 13.08.2018, held that the workmen - respondent no.1 were performing duty to a post of regular and perennial nature and therefore, are entitled for re-instatement in service on the same post with 50% back wages inasmuch as the termination of the claimant-workmen-respondent no.1 is per se illegal, particularly when the claimant - workmen are not gainfully employed anywhere since their termination.

11. In support of her contentions to challenge the order dated 30.04.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, Ms. Madhu Dayal, learned Advocate for the Management - appellant, submitted that the employees of canteen would not become employees of the bank as the bank does not have any statutory or contractual/obligations arising under any Award/Settlement to run such canteens. It was further submitted that such canteens are run at various branches of State Bank of India, by the Local Implementation Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'LIC'), as per the welfare scheme framed by the bank and, as such, there is no privity of contract or any agreement was ever arrived at, entered or executed between the Management and the respondent no.1 - workmen.

12. Apart from the above, Ms. Madhu Dayal, learned Advocate contended that the workmen were never appointed by the appellant - Management as there is no post of Canteen Waiter in the bank under any statutory rules. It was also denied that 11 canteen workers were ever employed by the appellant bank - Management while adding that the wages b