Patna High Court
Punjab National BankversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal’s award directing reinstatement and regularisation of the workman is upheld.
Summary
The Management of Punjab National Bank appealed against a High Court order that dismissed its writ petition seeking to quash an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, which directed the bank to reinstate a former peon, Sanjay Kumar Paswan, for having been terminated in violation of Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal had found that Paswan had continuous service from July 1989 to September 2003, exceeding the 240‑day attendance requirement each year, and therefore his dismissal was illegal. The Single Judge upheld the Tribunal’s award, relying on Supreme Court precedent that such termination warrants reinstatement with consequential benefits. On appeal, the Patna High Court affirmed that the Tribunal’s findings were reasoned, not perverse, and within jurisdiction, and that the Single Judge was correct in refusing interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the award reinstated.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination of the workman without compliance with Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act was legal.
- Whether the Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing reinstatement and regularisation of the workman.
- Whether the High Court should set aside the Tribunal’s award and the Single Judge’s order.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 25-F
Subjects
- Industrial dispute
- Termination without notice
- Section 25-F
- Reinstatement
- Industrial Tribunal award
- Writ jurisdiction
- Letters Patent Appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1464 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3708 of 2013
======================================================
The Management of Punjab National Bank Ramchandrapur, Biharsharif,
through its Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, City Branch, Bhagalpur,
Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Industrial Tribunal, Shram Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its
Presiding Officer.
3. The Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, Jharkhand through its
Presiding officer.
5. The Presiding Officer, Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
6. Sanjay Kumar Paswan, S/o Late Anil Paswan, Resident of Mohalla,
Mohaddinagar, PO. Mirjan Hat, District Bhagalpur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No. 1, Advocate
Ms.Kumari Rashmi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
4 02-02-2026 The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 3708 of 2013, whereby the
writ petition filed by the appellant- Bank was dismissed and the
Award dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, Jharkhand in Reference
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1464 of 2023(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
Case No. 68 of 2006 was upheld.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the
present appeal are that the private respondent–workman claimed
to have been engaged as a Peon with the appellant Bank during
the period July 1989 to September 2003. Upon termination of
his services, an industrial dispute was raised, which was referred
for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
No.1.
3. The Tribunal while adjudicating the dispute, framed
the following issue:
“Whether it is fact that Shri Sanjay Kumar Paswan
was employed by the management of Punjab
National Bank during the period from July 1989 to
September,2003? If yes, whether the action of the
management of Punjab National Bank, Patna in
terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Kumar
Paswan, Peon, City Branch, Bhagalpur without
complying Section 25-F of I.D. Act is legal and or
justified? If not, what relief Shri Sanjay Kumar
Paswan is entitled to?”
4. Upon consideration of the materials available on
record, the Tribunal recorded the following findings:
“9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it
shows that the concerned workman worked with the
management from July 1989 to September, 2003
continuously and as such he completed more than 240
days attendance in each calendar year. So, the action of
the management of Punjab National Bank, Patna in
terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Kuamr Paswan,
Peon, City Branch without complying section 25-F of
the I.D.Act is not legal and justified. Accordingly, the
concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated and
regularised in the services of the management as a
Peon. The management is directed to reinstate and
regularise the concerned workman, Sanjay Kumar
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1464 of 2023(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
Paswan, as a Peon within 30 days from the date of
publication of the award.”
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant-
Bank preferred CWJC No. 3708 of 2013, seeking the following
reliefs:
“a. For the issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari
to quash the Award dated 01.06.2012 passed in
Reference Case No. 68/2006 between “Sanjay Kumar
Paswan” & The Management of Punjab National Bank,
by the Central Government Industrial Tribual No. 1,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand wherein the petitioner bank has
been directed to reinstate and regularise the
Respondent No. 6 as a peon within 30 days from the
date of publication of the award.
b. For the issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders
and/or direction/directions as may be deemed fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
6. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 08.08.2023 and
made the following observations:
“7. A perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court shows that under similar circumstances
the Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the SLP has
upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question
as to whether the Industrial Tribunal has exceeded
jurisdiction while directing reinstatement of the workers
has held as under :
“10……….. The findings recorded by the Tribunal
to the effect that the appellant was engaged by the
Management of the Bank on regular basis from
1998 to 2001, i.e., for more than three years, was
certainly in the context of the claim as raised by
the appellant. In the totality of the circumstances
it could not therefore be held that the
regularization or the fact that the appellant was
entitled to be accommodated on regular basis was
not an issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in
our considered view, was right and justified in
arriving at said conclusion.
11. According to us, the Division Bench ought not
to have interfered in the matter and set-aside the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1464 of 2023(4) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
conclusions drawn by the Tribunal which were
affirmed by the Single Judge of the High Court.
12. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the
view taken by the Division Bench and restore the
award passed by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the
Single Judge of the High Court.”
8. Having regard to the above order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the impugned order which reveals
that the Tribunal was well within its power in directing
the reinstatement of the worker and also regularizing
his services.”
7. We have considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials
available on record, including the Award of the Tribunal and the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that the
Tribunal recorded a clear and reasoned findings of fact based on
evidence, holding that the workman had rendered continuous
service for more than 240 days in each calendar year and that
his termination was carried out in blatant violation of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. These findings have neither
been demonstrated to be perverse nor shown to be unsupported
by the record.
9. This Court further finds that the learned Single
Judge rightly refused to interfere with the Award, having regard
to the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that where termination is found to be in violation of
Section 25-F, reinstatement with consequential benefits is a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1464 of 2023(4) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
permissible and justified relief, depending upon the facts of each
case.
10. The Tribunal’s direction for reinstatement and
regularization was based upon the length and continuity of
service rendered by the workman and cannot be said to be
arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge was,
therefore, fully justified in affirming the Award.
11. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal
and affirmed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any
infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order
warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
13. Pending application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
U
Checking your session…