1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Ganga Singh Rawat vs Union Of India And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 April, 2019
Court No. - 47
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5350 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ganga Singh Rawat Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bushra Maryam Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,P.S.Tripahti,Ravi Prakash Pandey,S.C.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf the State.
This petition was entertained by an order dated 05.02.2016, and pending admission, notice was issued. This writ petition has been filed by a workman challenging an award dated 15.09.2015 published on 06.11.2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Labour Court, Lucknow in ID No. 37 of 2013. The petitioner, who is a workman, raised an industrial dispute regarding his removal from service by the respondent-employer/Bank with effect from 13.02.2010 giving rise to the following reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
"Whether the termination of the management of Punjab National Bank Moradabad in removing from the services of the Bank to Sri Ganga Singh Rawat w.e.f. 13.02.2010 is legal and just? What relief the concerned applicant is entitled to."
The Central Government Industrial Tribual-Labour Court has answered the reference against the workman holding the termination to be lawful.
A perusal of the impugned judgement and award indicates that the workman has neither filed a written statement or led evidence in support of his case. He has made applications alone during course of hearing of the reference seeking adjournment on the ground that his applications are pending before different authorities. The course of proceedings before the Labour Court show that the workman moved an application dated 02.04.2014 before the Tribunal seeking adjournment of the case till disposal of his representations sent earlier to several authorities, that is to say, the Labour Secretary, Government of India, His Excellency the President of India and the Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India. He has also filed on record the letter sent by the Punjab National Bank Employees Association which were dubbed as directions given by an Hon'ble Minister. It has been recorded that several applications were made before the Tribunal by the workman on the ground that his representation has not been duly decided by the concerned competent authority and directions given by the Chief Information Commissioner have not been complied with. The arguments of the workman were heard at length and the Tribunal went through it. It was opined that the issue to be adjudicated is whether the action of the Bank in ordering the workman's removal from service w.e.f. 13.02.2010 is legal and just. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that “on this simple and plain point of reference, neither any claim statement/petition/application has been submitted in this court by the concerned person Sri Ganga Singh Rawat, nor any other documentary or oral evidence pertaining to this case has been adduced by him, although sufficient opportunity during the last about two years has been provided to the applicant.” The Court held that the workman is not at all interested to submit his version before the Court or to proceed further with the case. It was held that under the circumstances, it was not legally feasible to grant any relief to the workman. It has also been recorded that it cannot be inferred that the impugned action of the Bank ordering removal from service of the workman, is not legal or just.
A perusal of the record reveals and this Court has no manner of doubt that the Industrial Tribunal had nothing before it either by a pleading or evidence on which it could act; bereft of both, the reference at the behest of the workman ought to fail for want of a case and discharge of evidential burden.
This Court does not find any infirmity in the award impugned.
Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Deepak
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • J J Munir
  • Bushra Maryam