[2023:RJ-JP:13953-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.236/2017

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4073/2000

Punjab & Sindh Bank through Shri D.S. Anand, Zonal Manager,

C-29, Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Through present Zonal

Manager Shri Ravinderjeet Singh Bakshi S/o Late Shri Manohar

Singhji aged about 58, Punjab & Sindh Bank, Jaipur Zone, 30/31

Mohan Tower, Vidhyut Nagar, Prince Road, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

----Appellant

Versus

1.

The Judge Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

Court, Jaipur.

2.

Shri. Mukesh Kumar Taneja Son of Shree Ram Chandra

Taneja, Resident of 133, Indira Colony, Jhotwara Road,

Bani Park, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr.Akhil Simlote with, Adv. with

Mr.Ashvini Raj Tanwar, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order

11/07/2023

REPORTABLE

1.

The instant special appeal has been filed by the

appellant-employer-Bank challenging the order dated

19.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4073/2000 filed by the appellant-

Bank challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court (Central Government), Jaipur (hereinafter

‘the Tribunal’), whereby termination of the respondent No.2-

employee (hereinafter ‘respondent-employee’) was found to

[2023:RJ-JP:13953-DB]

(2 of 15)

[SAW-236/2017]

be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act of 1947’).

2.

This case has a checkered history and narration of all

the facts in subsequent paras would reveal the same:-

(I) The respondent-employee was working as Peon with the

appellant-Bank from 03.08.1987 and his services came to be

retrenched w.e.f. 01.02.1996.

(II) The respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute

after reference being made by the Government and the

Tribunal passed an award dated 03.03.2000.

(III) The Tribunal while considering the various pleas raised

on behalf of the workman-employee came to conclusion that

the services of the respondent-employee were terminated in

violation of the statutory provision contained in Section 25-F

of the Act of 1947. The Tribunal further came to conclusion

that there were two posts of Peon, which were available for

the appointment with the employer at the time of

retrenchment of services of the respondent-employee and

only on account of joining of one person on transfer basis,

services of the respondent-employee could not have been

terminated without following the due process of law. The

operative portion of the award is quoted as under:-

“izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk

mYya?ku dj dh xbZ gSA vr% mldh lsok lekfIr voS/k o

vuqfpr ik;h tkrh gSA og cSad dh lsok esa fiNys osru

lfgr iqu% vkus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA izkFkhZ fujUrj lsok es

ekuk tk,xkA cSad dh mDr 'kk[kk esa fjDr in u gksus dh

n'kk esa vFkok fu;fer p;fur vH;FkhZ ds fu;qfDr gksus ij

[2023:RJ-JP:13953-DB]

(3 of 15)

[SAW-236/2017]

in fjDr u jgus dh n'kk esa izkFkhZ dh lsok,sa vf/kfu;e 1947

dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk dj lekIr djus ds fy;s cSad

Lora= gksxkA

iapkV dh izfrfyih dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e 1947 dh

/kkjk 17 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh

tk;A”

3.

The appellant-employer feeling aggrieved against the

award passed by the Tribunal filed, S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4073/2000 and learned Single Judge, vide order dated

17.08.2005, dismissed the said writ petition filed by the

appellant-employer and as such, the award passed by the

Tribunal was upheld.

4.

The appellant-employer preferred D.B. Special Appeal

(Writ) No.952/2006 and the Division Bench of this Court, vide

order dated 29.07.2015, remanded the matter back to

learned Single Judge, as the order of the Single Bench was

treated to be cryptic and no reasons were assigned in

dismissing the writ