From the Award dated the 5th April, 1983 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in I.D. No.
He enclosed the certificate and the marks sheet to prove that he passed the examination only subsequent to his selection as Tikka Mazdoor.
He was also informed that his name would be struck off since he had companycealed his educational qualification and that his services would be terminated without any numberice and companypensation from the bank.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner appeared to be impressed with the genuineness of his case, but his persuation did number move the bank in his favour.
No reply was given to these representations.
Mr. H.D. Singh is held number entitled to any relief.
If number, to what relief the workman in question is entitled?
From Reserve Bank of India To Shri Harindra dhwaj Kanpur Singh C o Shri B.D. Singh, C N Examiner Gr.
P. Malhotra, N.S. Das Bahl, Pawan K. Bahl and Miss Indu Malhotra for the Appellant.
His father was also an employee of the bank.
The appellant sent a reply stating that he was number a matriculate in 1974 when he was selected and that he passed the examination only in 1975.
There is numberwritten order terminating his services.
At the time he was selected for employment, he was number a matriculate.
These rival companytentions were companysidered by the Tribunal and it was held as follows The action of the Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur, in number giving regular appointment to Shri D.Singh is held to be legal and proper and his name companyld be struck off from the list of approved Tikka Mazdoors in terms of a proper and justifiable policy followed by the management of the Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur.
He pleaded mala fides, in that persons similarly placed like him who had become matriculates after selection had been retained in service and that he alone was discriminated against He stated that acquisition of high qualification should never have been used against him to deny him his job He had worked companytinuously for 240 days if the Sundays and holidays are taken into account The action of the bank in striking out his name from the list amounted to retrenchment.
On merits, the claim was resisted with the plea that the appellant failed to inform the bank that he had passed matriculation examination after getting selected and secondly that he had number worked for 240 days in any year.
Whether the action of the Management of Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur, in striking off the name of Shri H.D. Singh from the list of approved Tikka Mazdoors from July, 1976, is Justified and legal?
It appears that Tikka Mazdoors are placed in List II maintained by the bank.
The representative of the first respondent admitted, while he was cross examined, that numberformal order intimating the appellant that his name was struck off the list was issued.
At the time he was selected he was number told that his name would be struck off the list of Tikka Mazdoors if he passed the matriculate examination.
It is against this award that the appellant has companye up to this Court by special leave.
Thereupon, both his father and the appellant made representations to the bank against the action taken.
The claim of the appellant was resisted by the bank raising both preliminary legal objections and factual objections.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On 23/7/1976, he received a letter from the bank asking him to state within a week latest by 29/7/1976 as to what his educational qualification was.
The appellant in his claim statement pleaded as follows He had presented himself for duty daily, but was number offered jobs on the days when he reported for duty for reasons best known to the bank He was employed only for four days in the year 1974, 154 days in 1975 and 105 days in 1976 He was number told at the time when he accepted the job that his name would be struck off from the rolls if he passed the matriculate examination.
When his attempt to get his grievances redressed by companyrespondence failed, he moved for companyciliation.
He passed the matriculate examination in 1975.
It was companytended that the reference was bad since the dispute was number sponsored by any representative trade union, that Section 2 A was number attracted and also that the dispute in question was number an industrial dispute.
He knew that the appellants name had been removed permanently from the list of Tikka Mazdoors.
Thereupon, the Central Government made a reference by Notification dated 19/9/1979, for adjudication of the following dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi.
The appellant was number given any work after July 1976.
3 as per appointment letter dated 30/4/1974.
6417 of 1983.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and H.S. Parthar for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID, J. The appellant was a Tikka Mazdoor with the first respondent, the Reserve Bank of India.
He was so selected on daily wages of Rs.
A Tikka mazdoor is a person who helps the Examiners of Coins numberes.
On days when numberwork was given to him he had to wait till numbern to be told by the authorities companycerned that numberwork was available on such days.
As per the appointment order he used to report to the bank regularly at 9.30 A.M. to ascertain whether he companyld get work on every day.
Thus he was given work only for four days in 1974, One Hundred and Fifty Four days in 1975 and One Hundred and Five days in 1976.
54 of 1979.
A companyfidential circular seems to have been issued by the bank on 27/6/1976 to the effect that matriculates would number be retained in this list.
