IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 923 of 2008()
1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
... Respondent
2. SHRI. P.A.HAMZA, C/O.H.B.SHENOY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.923 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
A Nationalised Bank, aggrieved by a portion of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.411 of 2000 dated 9th January,
2008 is before us in this writ appeal.
(2). The lis is between a sub-staff and a mighty Bank. Since
the conciliation proceedings had failed, the workman had approached the
Central Government to refer the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication. The Central Government had referred the following issue for
consideration by the Industrial Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of the Central Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri.P.A.Hamza with effect
from 2-12-1991 and refusing to consider him for
re-employment is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
said workman is entitled and from which date?”
(3). After receiving the point of dispute, the Industrial Tribunal
had registered the dispute as I.D.No.30/1997. By Ext.P3 award, the
Industrial Tribunal had answered the point of dispute referred to it by the
Central Government in favour of the workman and against the Bank.
(4). The Bank, being aggrieved by Ext.P3 award passed in
I.D.No.30/1997, was before this Court in O.P.No.411/2000. The learned
Single Judge, by his order dated 9th January, 2008 has allowed the Original
Petition and has set aside the award passed by the Labour Court in
WA.No.981/2008 -2-
I.D.No.30/1997, and in exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction and also
taking into consideration the plight of the poor workman who was agitating his
claims before various Forums including the Labour Court, has directed the
Bank to permit the workman to appear for the test and interview as and when
the Bank calls for test selection process to appoint sub-staff in the Bank
notwithstanding the age bar, if any. It is this portion of the discretionary
order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of writ appeal
by the Bank.
(5). Sri.V.V.Sidharthan, learned counsel appearing for the
Bank would vehemently contend that, while allowing the original petition and
while setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.30/1997,
the learned Judge ought not have made any other observations.
(6). We have carefully perused the observations made by the
learned Single Judge of which the Bank is aggrieved. The learned Judge has
taken firstly into consideration the Sashtri Award (sic. Circular issued by the
Bank) which provided that, if an employee has worked in the Bank for a
period of 180 days during the period from 1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990 and if he
has registered with the Employment Exchange and if his candidature is not
sponsored by the Employment Exchange, then such workman will be called to
appear in the immediate sub-staff recruitment as and when held.
(7). Keeping in view the Circular of the Bank and also keeping
in view that the workman had worked in the Bank right from 1986 till 1991, the
learned Judge has come to the aid of the workman by directing the Bank to
permit the workman to appear for the test and interview as and when the
WA.No.981/2008 -3-
Bank calls for test selection process to appoint sub-staff in the Bank,
notwithstanding the age of the workman.
(8). The first and foremost observation made by the learned
Single Judge at para 9 of the judgment is only discretionary. Secondly,
while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction, the Court has placed reliance
on the Circular issued by the Bank. Yet again, the Court has only said that
the workman may be given an opportunity to appear for the test and appear
for the interview also if and when sub-staff recruitment is made by the Bank,
without reference to the age limit of the workman. All these have been done
by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the plight of the workman who
was fighting the litigation right from 1991. We do not see any error in the
observations made and directions issued by the learned Single Judge which
would call for our interference. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be
rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.C.HARI RANI)
JUDGE
MS