Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties at length.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of impugned award dated 22nd November, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. in Industrial dispute case No. 54 of 2000. In the matter of Raj Bahadur Yadav v. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal office, Varanasi.

3. The claim of respondent/workman is that he was a permanent employee of the petitioner w.e.f. 1st September, 1988 he was drawing salary of Rs. 750/- per month, at the time of his alleged verbal terminated from service by the bank from the fournoon of 11th August, 1999 the workman concerned raised aforesaid industrial dispute No. 54 of 2000 challenging his termination on the ground that it was illegal and without jurisdiction as the bank had not complied with the conditions precedent to retrenchment under Section-25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide notification No. L-12012/55/2000/IR (B-1) dated 27.6.2000 referred the follwing dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, U.P.

5. Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Varanasi in terminating the service of Raj Bahadur Yadav, former messenger, w.e.f. 11.8.99 is just and legal? If not, to what relief is the disputant entitled to?

6. The case of the workman before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was appointed as permanent messenger in the bank after interview and was posted its Sonbhadra branch where he worked up to 28.11.88, thereafter he worked at bank’s branch situated at ITI Complex, Naini, Allahabad from where his services has been dispensed with illegally and without complying with the provisions of Section-25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule-42 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947. The worker prayed for reinstatement of his service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

7. The case of the petitioner bank before the High Court is that there was no relationship as master and servant between the workman concerned and petitioner, there are certain set of rules and procedure prescribed for recruitment of a permanent employee in the bank and for the engagement as an employee of a bank. Vacancies are identified and advertised in the newspapers and the candidates faces written test and interview. After final selection only a successful candidate is appointed as an employee of the bank. It is also submitted that the respondent/workman was a private courier and was not appointed by the bank even as its permanent employee. He was rather engaged for 89 days at a time for a fixed period as a casual/temporary independent contractor accordingly to the terms contained in the bipartite settlements entered into with the management of the bank and the unions and that ancillary casual engagement of private courier and besides doing his other usual and routine vocations and economic activities etc. at other places unconnected with the bank he cannot be allowed to allege his status of being protected under Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The alleged petitioner has never been under the bank’s discipline and control including the time, hours and/or manner performance/non performance etc. nor were terms and conditions of service of the bank applicable to him. It is also pleaded that messengers namely S/Sri Kallu Singh, Kabir Das and Smt. Asha Devi were already working with the ITI Complex Branch of the bank during the period alleged claimant has raised his claim as such the claim is false baseless and liable to be dismissed.

8. It has also been pleaded that the alleged engagement during the period 1.9.88 to 28.11.88 i.e. only for 89 days came to an end by the expiry of time fixed for the said casual engagement as such it