Judgment:
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. The petitioner has. prayed for setting aside the award (Annexure 7) passed by respondent No. 3 in Reference No. 41 of 1992 under which the tribunal held that the termination of the workmen (respondents No. 5, 6 and 7) and denying their reinstatement and regularisation in services of the Bank was not valid and justified and directed the petitioner Bank to regularise them in service from 1.1.1991 and to pay at least 30% of the full back wages from that day.
2. No body appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Srivastava, on behalf of the workmen-respondents No. 4 to 7.
3. The following dispute was referred by order dated 4.6.1992 for adjudication:
Whether the action of the management of Vaishally Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating/retrenching S/Shri Collector Singh, Jaikant Thakur and Mithilesh Lal from their services and further denying their reinstatement/regularisation is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?
4. The case of the workmen, namely, Kalaktar Singh, Jaykant Thakur and Mithilesh Lal was that they worked from 13.1.1978, 28.4.1978 and 31.8.1979 respectively and they completed more than 240 days in continuous service within a year, but they were stopped/terminated on 1.8.1982, 14.10.1981 and 1.4.1985 respectively without any notice pay/compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
5. The case of the management was that the workmen were casual worker working intermittently and they left the work on their own for better engagement. The management denied that the workmen worked for more than 240 days within a year preceding their termination and contended that Section 25F of the Act was not attracted. The management's further case was that the dispute was stale.
4. The dispute was certainly stale as having been raised after six-ten years. The management, proved that the workmen absented and left the work of their own for better job. Admittedly the workmen did not work from 1.8.1982, 14.10.1981 and 1.4.1985 but the dispute was raised by them in the year 1991. The conclusion of the tribunal that the claim was not stale, as the workmen have been representing before the management between these years, is wholly unsustainable.
5. Moreover in view of specific denial of the management, it was for the workmen to prove that they in fact had worked for 240 days in the year preceding their alleged termination, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani : (2002)ILLJ1053SC . From the exhibits relied by the tribunal on this score, it is clear that the respondents No. 5 to 7 failed to prove the facts attracting Section 25F of the Act.
6. It has been held in paragraph-5 of the judgment of Central Bank of India Limited v. Prakash Chand Jain : (1969)IILLJ377SC that the finding is perverse if no reasonable person would come to it on the basis of the materials on record. In the circumstances, the award based on such findings, being wholly illegal and perverse, cannot be sustained in law. On the Whole, in my opinion, the impugned award deserves interference.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned award (Annexure 7) is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.