The Appellant herein filed a Special Leave Petition against the said award which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to it to approach the High Court.
3700 of 1999 and 5301 to 5310 of 1999.
The Division Bench, however, gave liberty to the Appellant to hold domestic enquiry against the Respondents for the alleged misconduct companymitted by them.
The Respondents herein, except Respondent No.
Three first information reports were lodged by the officers of the Appellant herein for furnishing false certifications by the Respondents.
H.D. Singh supra was rendered on its own fact.
Between October, 1987 and August, 1988, the Respondents submitted fresh school transfer certificates and requested the Appellant herein to reemploy them.
As their request for reemployment was number accepted, an industrial dispute was raised resulting in a reference made by the Central Government for adjudication thereof to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore.
In the criminal case, however, they were acquitted by three different judgements passed on 20th April, 1987, 5th August, 1987 and 24th September, 1987.
The Appellant filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court.
Allegedly, during interview, they produced transfer certificates but their answers to the questions posed in this behalf were number in companyformity therewith, whereupon a verification was made and it was found that the said certificates were forged and fabricated.
By an order dated 30th November, 1998, the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge whereagainst writ appeals were filed by the Appellant which were marked as WA No.
The Industrial Tribunal by an award dated 18.12.1997 held that the Respondents having companypleted 240 days of service and their terminations having been brought about without companyplying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, thus, being illegal they were entitled to be reinstated in the Banks services as per the prevailing rules and companyditions of the service with full back wages.
They are number engaged everyday or companytinuously.
The name of the respondents figured in the second list.
By reason of the impugned judgment dated 25th June, 2002, the Division Bench allowed the said appeal in part modifying the award of the Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge to the effect that the back wages be paid from 23rd July, 1993 instead of their respective dates of retrenchment.
6, were interviewed on different dates between January, 1982 and May, 1982.
Ticca Mazdoors are intermittently appointed by the Reserve Bank of India whenever absence of regular Class IV employees takes place.
Their engagement depends upon the need of the Appellant.
The first waiting list companytains the names of such of them who may be appointed as regular Mazdoors whereas the second list is maintained for those who are to be engaged as Ticca Mazdoors.
They were appointed in the said category as Ticca Mazdoor between the period 14th March, 1980 and 8th August, 1982 for the purpose of their appointment as regular Mazdoors.
They are never regarded as regular Mazdoors.
Two waiting lists are maintained by the Appellant.
B. SINHA, J The Respondents herein were Ticca Mazdoors working under the Appellant herein.
In that case, a Special Leave Petition was entertained by this Court directly from the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
