U. Muruganadham vs The Management, Pandyan Grama Bank and The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal

M. Jaichandren, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the second respondent Tribunal, dated 28.3.2002, made in

I.D. No. 463 of 2001, and for a direction to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all consequential benefits, including

backwages.

It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Tiny Deposit Collector in the first respondent Bank, under the ''Nitham Valar Nithi

Scheme'', by an order of appointment, dated 1.2.1984, in accordance with the terms of the agreement made between the petitioner and the first

respondent Bank, on commission basis. While so, the first respondent had issued a letter, dated 2.3.1995, against the opening of new accounts, if

the deposit in the ''Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme'' account in the first respondent Bank is less than rupees five lakhs. Accordingly, the first respondent

had stopped assigning work to the petitioner and he was terminated from service, without giving any notice or reasons for such termination.

Therefore, the action of the first respondent Bank in terminating the service of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable.

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent Tribunal had erred in holding that the

termination of the petitioner is justified, in spite of the finding that he was a workman and that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. It has been further contended that the termination of the petitioner from service by the first respondent Bank, being arbitrary

and illegal, ought to have been set aside by the second respondent Tribunal and the said Tribunal ought to have directed the first respondent Bank

to reinstate the petitioner in service, with back wages and all other attendant benefits.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Bank had submitted that the petitioner had been terminated from

service only due to the fact that the ''Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme'' had been withdrawn due to administrative and financial reasons. There was no

mala fide action on the part of the first respondent Bank in retrenching the petitioner from service. Since the ''Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme'' had

been withdrawn there is no possibility of the petitioner being reinstated in service, along with the back wages and other attendant benefits, as

prayed for by the petitioner. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel for the first respondent that the second respondent Tribunal had

come to its conclusions based on the evidence available on record and by considering the fact that the ''Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme'' had been

withdrawn in respect of the first respondent Bank due to administrative and financial reasons.

The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:

i) In Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. P.C. Pal and Others, , the Supreme Court had held that reorganisation of business was within the managerial

discretion of the employer. A bona fide reorganisation of business resulting in retrenchment of labour does not give jurisdiction to the Tribunal to go

into the question as to the propriety of such reorganisation of business and the consequent discharge of surplus labour. The determination of

workload and the labour strength are factors to be decided by the employer. Once it is found that the retrenchment of surplus labour is bona fide

and not mala fide the industrial tribunal cannot interfere with the said retrenchment.

ii) In Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and Ors. 2001 (3) SCC 36, it had been held that commission agents and deposit

collectors of banks are not entitled to pay scales, allowances and service conditions applicable to regular bank employees.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent and in view of the decided

cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the first respondent and on considering the records available, this Court is of the considered view that

the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for interfering with the award of the second respondent Tribunal, dated 28.3.2002, made in

I.D. No. 463 of 2001.

The second respondent Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a workman, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had

held that he should have been paid the retrenchment compensation, u/s 25F of the said Act, by the first respondent Bank. However, since the

''Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme'', under which the petitioner had been employed had been, withdrawn in respect of the first respondent Bank, no

direction had been issued by the second respondent Tribunal to the first respondent Bank to reinstate the petitioner in service, with back wages

and other attendant benefits, as prayed for by the petitioner. Unless, it was found that the withdrawal of the scheme was mala fide it cannot be said

that the retrenchment of the petitioner by the first respondent Bank is arbitrary or void. Since the second respondent Tribunal had found that the

retrenchment of the petitioner from service was due to the fact that the ''Nitham Valar Nithi Scheme'' had been withdrawn in respect of the

petitioner Bank due to administrative and financial reasons and as it was found to be bona fide in nature there was no scope for the second

respondent Tribunal to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is

devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

At this stage of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the retrenchment

compensation, as directed by the second respondent Tribunal, had not been paid to the petitioner, till date. On such submission being made, the

learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Bank had stated that in case the retrenchment compensation, ordered to be paid by the

second respondent Tribunal, has not been paid to the petitioner till date, the first respondent Bank would comply with the said order, within a

period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.