General Manager is proved by the Evidence of Ws 1 and 2.
Appellant Bank took the stand that these two persons were number workmen and in any event the dis engagement was legal, justified and permissible.
The High Court came to hold that a Tiny Deposit Collector was a workman.
The Union carried the matter further in writ appeal.
1 Union preferred Civil Writ Petition No.
15538 of 1997 before the Madras High Court.
On 11.10.1984 and 12.12.1984 engagements of Koshi Kottikeran and Liakath Ali came to be terminated by the appellant Bank.
Respondent No.1 The Union raised two disputes purported to be an industrial dispute with regard to alleged termination of the aforesaid two persons.
He submitted his explanation is proved by Ex.
The Petitioner in the two I.Ds and Ravi Kumar, used vulgar words is proved by the legal evidence of M.Ws 1 and 2, the petitioner in both the ID were given warning and put on numberice about their misconduct.
That being so numberspecific reason for termination of services was disclosed.
It referred to the letters of disengagement and came to hold that the termination orders disclosed that they were simple orders of termination.
J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu in short the Tribunal I.D. Case Nos.26 and 44 of 1987.
opportunity was given to the appellant and respondent to adduce evidence, to prove the charge in this Tribunal.
The Tribunal passed a companymon award answering the reference against the claimant and in favour of the management.
Aggrieved by the award the respondent No.
Therefore, it is a valid dispute, and the dispute referred to can be adjudicated by the Tribunal.
The Bank refused to companycede to the demand of the Commission Agents.
Admittedly there is numberenmity between the Commission Agents and M.Ws 1 and 2.
M. 25.
M. 24.
By the impugned order the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal.
Learned Single judge by order dated 15.10.1997 dismissed the writ petition.
5344 OF 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order Passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondents.
500/ and 1 000/ and signatures of the Manger in the companypon.
The Commission Agents and two staff of the b demonstrated in front of the bank and shouting vulgar slogans against the Dy.
The bank published the numberice in Tamil News Paper is proved by Ex M 20 The Petitioners in both the I.D.s demanded companypon for Rs.
Ravi kumar was also a Commission Agent and he companymitted several malpractice and action was taken against him.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Two persons named Koshi Kottikeran and Liakath Ali were engaged as Commission agents with the appellant Bank in its Coimbatore Branch.
