JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (in short Tribunal') dated 19th April, 1985, passed by the respondent No. 1 in I.D. case Nos. 85 of 1983 and 88 of 1983, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-C to the writ petition.
2. The following disputes were referred to the Tribunal by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour for adjudication vide orders dated 19th December, 1982 and 26th March, 1982, which are reproduced below :
"In the case of I.D. No. 85 of 1983 :
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Kanpur, in not absorbing Shri Ayodhya Prasad, Sub-Staff in the bank's services and terminating his services from 1976 is justified? If not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
In the case of I.D. No. 88 of 1983 :
"Whether the action of management of Central Bank of India, Kanpur, in not absorbing S/Sri Om Narain Mishra, Girish Dutt Shukla, Udai Naratn Mishra, Ashok Kumar Pande and Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, in bank's services and terminating their services from 1976 is justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"
3. The 'Tribunal' vide its award impugned in the present writ petition has answered the references after having come to the conclusion in the following terms "I hold that the action of the bank management of Central Bank of India in not absorbing Shri Ayodhya Prasad of I.D. No. 85 of 1983 sub-staff in the bank services and terminating his services from 1976 is not justified. The result is that the applicant-workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages." Similarly, in other I.D. No. 88 of 1983, the 'Tribunal' has held "I hold that the action of the management of Central Bank of India in not absorbing the workmen, namely, S/Shri Om Narain Mishra, Girish Dutt Shukla, Vdai Narain Mishra, Ashok Kumar Pande and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, in bank services and terminating their services from 1976 are not justified. The result is that the applicants/ workmen are entitled to be re-instated with full back wages."
4. Pursuant to the issuance of the notice, the workmen as well as the employer have exchanged their written statements and rejoinder-affidavits. The 'Tribunal' after permitting the parties to adduce such evidence which they want to adduce, has examined the pleadings and evidences aforesaid and found that in view of the circular issued by the Bank himself, the action of the bank in not permitting these workmen to complete their 240 days of services, whereas the persons who were appointed subsequent to these workmen, were allowed to work for 240 days and thus, not absorbing these workmen on regular side and terminating their services with effect from the year 1976 is mala fide on the part of the Bank management and amounts to unfair labour practice.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank employer argued that the findings recorded by the 'Tribunal' with regard to the fact that the Bank has not allowed these workmen to complete 240 days, whereas the similarly, situated other workmen who were appointed subsequent to these workman have completed their 240 days, suffers from the manifest error of law, inasmuch as these workmen have admittedly not worked for 240 days and even. If it is taken into account that they have worked for number of days in different spells taking back of the spells, they would not be able to demonstrate that they have completed their 240 days of working in preceding one year before the relevant date in the year 1976 and therefore, though it is admitted that such of the workmen who were appointed subsequently were allowed to complete 240 days, were subsequently regularised and these workmen were arbitrarily not permitted to complete their 240 days of working, is not supported by any evidence on record, they are not entitled to be re-instated in service. The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the employer is contrary to the evidence and material on the basis of which the Tribunal has reached the aforesaid findings. In this view of the matter, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India refuse to interfere in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, which are the findings of fact and cannot be interfered with unless the same are demonstrated to be perverse, or is suffering from any error of law. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to arrive at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the 'Tribunal' are either perverse, or are suffering from the manifest error of law.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer, at the end, submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court dated 16th August, 1985, these workmen were admittedly out of employment w.e.f. year 1983 and, therefore, even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages may be modified to that of compensation only. Admittedly services of these workman were terminated in the year 1976. Thereafter, the matter was referred to by the Central Government to the 'Tribunal', which gave its award in favour of the workmen, but this Court stayed the award, as already stated above. In this view of the matter, after a lapse of over 25 years, the relief of re-instatement with full back wages may not be appropriate relief, therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen concerned may be paid compensation equivalent to sum as contemplated under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, up to the decision of this writ petition and thereafter compensation as the rate of full back wages when the workmen would have been entitled, had they been allowed to continue their service be awarded as compensation instead of re-instatement and full back wages.
7. With the aforesaid modification, this writ petition is allowed in part. The order of 'Tribunal' is modified to the aforesaid extent. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.