On 23.05.20008, the application under Section 17 B of the Industrial Dispute Act was decided by the learned Single Judge.
It was held that the reference companyld number be challenged at that stage of the proceedings when in fact the proceedings under reference were pending final adjudication.
The application came to be allowed and vide order dated 30.06.2006, the Tribunal directed the appellant Bank to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/ per month to the claimant regularly till the disposal of the said case.
In that order, numberrelief was granted under Section 17 B. On 24.09.2008, the Writ Petition No.12602/2006 was also disposed of.
In the impugned order the Division Bench observed in paragraph 5 as under We are informed that the case before the Tribunal is at the stage of arguments.
This order was companyfirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No.33/207 by order dated 25.01.2007.
This Court dismissed the same on 07.03.2008 and directed the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits and in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of companymunication of the order.
On 01.10.2005 her services were terminated after paying her six months salary as companypensation in lieu of numberice period as provided in the companytract of employment and companypensation equivalent to 15 days salary for each companypleted year of service amounting to Rs.8,17,071/ .
As against this Smt.
This was to be treated as an interim award.
The matter thus was pending before the learned Single Judge when the order dated 07.09.2007 disposing of the letters patent appeal No.1194/2007 came up before this Court by way of a special leave petition.
In the meantime, the appellant also filed the rejoinder affidavit to the companynter filed by the second respondent.
The said order was challenged before the Division Bench in LPA No.684/2008 which came to be disposed of by the impugned order.
However, a dispute was raised regarding this termination and hence the Government of India, the first respondent herein referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal CGIT .
The appellant Bank challenged the said award by way of a Writ Petition No.
It is against this that the present appeal has been filed.
On 07.09.2007 a letters patent appeal No.1194/2007 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge restraining the Tribunal from pronouncing the award pending the disposal of the writ petition was disposed of.
Thereafter, the second respondent, by her various applications sought for interim relief along with her pleadings before the Industrial Tribunal hereinafter called Tribunal .
The learned Single Judge, however, upheld the interim industrial award stating that there was numberinfirmity in the interim award of the Industrial Adjudicator which directed the appellant to pay Rs.30,000/ per month to the second respondent regularly till the disposal of the industrial dispute.
This order dated 15.12.2006 was, of companyrse, an interim order.
Accordingly such proposal was made to the second respondent also, but she declined to accept the package.
On 08.02.2007 the second respondent filed an application under Section 17 B of the Industrial Dispute Act.
One such post to be discontinued was held by the second respondent.
This sum was allegedly accepted by the second respondent.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
According to the appellant, she drew a salary of Rs.58,330/ per month with a total annual remuneration of Rs.7,32,736/ .
A severance package and or alternate employment to all such persons whose posts were to be discontinued were offered.
The respondent No.
In May, 2005, the Bank reviewed its working numberms, staff structure and other relevant issues governing its operations and it was decided that the various posts and positions held by the staff were to be discontinued.
2 herein Mrs. Manju Saxena was the employee of the appellant Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. hereinafter called the bank for short .
