ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12th September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-bank. The appellant-Bank filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the legality of the Award dated 28th May, 2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court in I.D. Case No. 3/2005.
2. The grievance raised by the appellant in this appeal as also in the writ petition is that the respondent was a temporary employee and he never worked for 240 days in the preceding year before his termination and, therefore, no objection could have been taken against the management in terminating the service of the respondent. The said contention was also raised before the learned Tribunal, where the following issue was framed:
(i) Whether the workman has performed 240 days work during his period of employment?
(ii) x x x x x
(iii) x x x x x
3. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record and particularly the statement of the management witness came to the conclusion that the letters Annexures C-1, C-2 and C-3, which are admitted documents, indicate that the management has admitted that the workman was a temporary workman and that he was a Daftry and Peon of the bank. Learned Tribunal has referred to photocopies of cheques, besides several documents, which were filed by the workman and exhibited as B-12 to B-85. The management witness was confronted with the said cheques which were issued in the name of the respondent-workman and he stated as follows:
It is wrong to suggest that the claimant has worked for 7 years regularly with the bank even though the cheques have been issued by the bank every month.
4. The learned Tribunal relying upon the said evidence of the management witness and the documentary evidence available on record has held that the irresistible conclusion was that the respondent -workman has worked for 7 years from 1995 till 2002 which is established from the fact that cheques towards remuneration were issued by the bank every month and were encashed by the respondent. The learned Tribunal further held that it was conclusively proved that the workman had worked for more than one year prior to the date of his termination. The aforesaid findings have been upheld by the learned Single Judge and are based on records, evidence and are found to be cogent and reliable. It stands proved that the respondent was a temporary employee but served the management for 7 long years and received his remuneration by way of cheques issued to him from 12th September, 1995 to 9th September, 2002.
5. At one stage it was sought to be submitted on behalf of the bank that during the aforesaid period the respondent did not work but some other person had worked. The aforesaid position cannot be accepted as monthly cheques were encashed by the respondent. In this connection, we may refer to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal wherein it was stated that some cheques had been issued in fictitious names but the respondent-workman had encashed the said cheques. The management witness also could not state as to whether Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Jyot Sharma and Mr. Anil Kumar were ever engaged by the bank. In the light of the said evidence, it cannot be denied that those names are fictitious and that those names have been introduced by the bank to create artificial breaks in the regular service of the respondent. We find no reason to take a different view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge and by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court that the workman has worked continuously during 1995-2002 and Section 25B is attracted. We are not inclined to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at as the said findings do not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.