Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Regional Manager Uco Bank Jaip vs Kailash Chand Gupta & Anr on 4 November, 2016
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5557/2005
1. Regional Manager,
UCO Bank,
A-30 B, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Kailash Chand Gupta
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai Ji Tambi
R/o Manak Chowk, Dausa,
District Dausa, Rajasthan.
2. Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Cum Labour Court, Jaipur
Through its Presiding Officer.
...Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5564/2005
1. Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Branch Dausa, Dausa (Raj).
...Petitioner Versus
1. Kailash Prasad Khandelwal S/o Sh. Narayan Lal Khandelwal R/o Behind Women's College, Dausa, Rajasthan.
2. Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur Tulsi Marg, Banipark, Jaipur Through its Presiding Officer.
...Respondents Date of Order-::-4th November, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. C.P. Sharma, for petitioner/s.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, for respondent/s. -2-
Under challenge in these two writ petitions is the award dated 08.07.2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Labour Court') whereby on the claim petition filed by the respondents-workmen (hereinafter 'the workmen') pursuant to a reference made by the Central Government under Clause D of Sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination of the service of the workmen effective 03.02.1999 and 18.1.1997 respectively was held to be illegal and unjustified and hence it was directed that the workmen be reinstated in service with back-wages @ 50%.
Counsel for the petitioners-Bank submitted that admittedly the workmen were engaged as commission agents under the Small Scale Scheme (Laghu Bachat Yojna) operated by the petitioner-Bank. The said Laghu Bachat Yojna was discontinued effective 24.11.1997 under a letter issued by the Zonal Manager of the petitioners-Bank. Counsel submitted that this defence was specifically taken before the Labour Court as reflected in para 4 of the reply to the claim petition and stated in evidence but glossed over as evident from a reading of the impugned award. And consequently the Labour Court erred in holding a case of unlawful retrenchment being made out and directing the -3- reinstatement of the workmen. It was submitted that removal of a workman for reasons of closure of a scheme is not retrenchment in law. Reference was made to the judgment of Apex Court in A.P. Bank Deposit Collectors Association & Anr. vs. State Bank of India & Anr., in a Transfer Case (Civil) 79 of 2005 decided on 28.02.2008 where it was held that discontinuation of a deposit scheme and consequent removal of agents working there-under did not tantamount to a retrenchment requiring compliance with Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Counsel submitted that in the instant case the workmen were in any event allowed to continue receiving commission of deposits earlier made into accounts with the petitioner-Bank under the Laghu Bachat Yojna when in currency and for this reason no retrenchment could at all be found as wrongly done by the Labour Court. Reduction in receipt of commission resulting from a policy decision which did not allow opening of new accounts under the Laghu Bachat Yojna could not at all in law or fact be retrenchment. Counsel submitted that however in any event the Small Scale Scheme (Laghu Bachat Yojna) by the petitioners-Bank has since been restarted on 15.02.2005 and the workmen thereafter re-engaged as commission agents there-under for opening of new accounts with the Bank for commission. It is submitted that in the circumstances, -4- the award dated 08.07.2004 in so far as it directs that the workmen would be entitled to 50% back-wages for the purported illegal retrenchment be quashed and set- aside.
Mr. Ashok Sharma appearing for the workmen has supported the award dated 08.07.2004 passed by the Labour Court.
Heard. Considered.
The Apex Court in the case of A.P. Bank Deposit Collectors Association & Anr. (supra) has held that where a deposit scheme has been discontinued by way of a policy decision resulting in the removal of the commission agents working under the said scheme, it would not entail an infraction of Section 25-F of the Act 1947. Such a fact situation obtains in the present case. Admittedly in the instant case, the workmen engaged as commission agents under the small scale scheme (Laghu Bachat Yojna) by the petitioners-Bank on 25.09.1997 continued to work as such and earned commission on old and new accounts opened there-under till a policy decision of the petitioners-Bank on 24.11.1997 to discontinue the said scheme. Further admittedly the workmen continued to get commission on deposits made on accounts under the Laghu Bachat Yojna earlier opened by them even after 24.11.1997. Reduction of commission income for reason of discontinuance of the Laghu Bachat -5- Yojna cannot be construed as retrenchment. Alternatively removal or closure of a scheme under a policy decision is not retrenchment as held in almost similar facts situation by the Apex Court in A.P. Bank Deposit Collectors Association & Anr. (supra). Consequently, the petitioners not having been "retrenched", and hence no direction for their reinstatement and the payment of 50% backwages computed on the basis of a proximate monthly commission could have been issued.
Be as it may, counsel for the petitioners-Bank has submitted that the small scale deposit scheme (laghu bachat yojna) having been since restarted by the petitioners-Bank in the year 2005, the respondents were re-engaged as commission agents for opening of new accounts for making of deposits whereon commission as agreed would be payable to them.
Consequently, the writ petitions stand disposed of, quashing and setting aside the awards dated 08.07.2004 to the extent they direct payment of 50% back-wages to the respondent-workmen from the date of their purported retrenchment as commission agents with the petitioners-Bank under the Laghu Bachat Yojna till the date of their reinstatement. It is further directed that the workmen be allowed to continue in that capacity except for legally plausible future causes warranting their -6- removal/discontinuance. If occasion for removal arises, procedure strictly in accordance with law be adopted.
A copy of this order be placed with the connected writ petition No.5564/2005.
(ALOK SHARMA), J.
R.Vaishnav 66-67.