Sh. Pradeep Kaushik vs PNB & Anr on 5 October 2026

1. The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank (East), 495/1, RPG Tower, Mangal Pandey Nagar, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250003.

2. The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank (West), LIC Building, Prabhat Nagar, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250003.

…Management/respondent

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Vijay Pal, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Mehla, Ld. AR.

Award 05.10.2026

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its Order No. L-42011/225/2018-IR (DU) dated 13.02.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Punjab National Bank and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal, terms of which are as under: “Whether the workman Shri Pradeep Kaushik is entitled to be reinstated in the services of Punjab National Bank with back wages and other benefits provided in service condtions available to other similiarly placed regular employee of the Bank with effect from 01.03.2009. If yes, what directions are necessary in this respect?”

2. Upon receiving of the reference, notices were issued to both claimant and the managements. Workman has filed his claim statement stating that he has joined into employment of management w.e.f. 01.03.2009 at the post of “Peon” and his last drawn salary was Rs. 6,000/- per month. He was working at Zonal Stationery Centre, Punjab National Bank under circle Head Office, Meerut, UP. Before his appointment, an advertisement was displayed on the board of branch, the concerned workman applied for the post of Peon. He had qualified the interview and thereafter he was engaged for the post of Peon. He was appointed on the said post on a vacant post and since the first day of appointment i.e. 01.03.2009, he was discharging his services on the aforesaid post without any absence and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and he has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his credit. He was working under the supervision of Sh. B.M. Sharma, Senior Branch Manager Zonal Stationary Centre Punjab National Bank, Meerut, U.P. The management was taking the work of the concerned workman like maintaining the stationary, packing of the stationary, post of the intend to other branches of the PNB Bank, made a recovery of the circle officer, cleaning, sweeping and dusting etc. He was being paid his salary bills/ vouchers every month transferred directly in his saving bank account. He had been deprived from the basic facilities i.e. appointment letter, attendance record, wages register, EPF, bonus, casual leave, earned leave etc. He had been doing his work with diligently and honestly. Thereafter, on 11.04.2018 without issuing any notice or without any rhyme or reason his services have been orally terminated by the management which is totally illegal, bad, unjust and malafide. He, many times, requested the management through various letters to reinstate his services, but, no action has been taken by the management in this regard. He has gone to the conciliation, but, it was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that

he be reinstated in his services with full back wages along with all consequential benefits.

3. Management no. 1 has filed its WS. He submitted that there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the management; therefore, the question of his termination in April 2018 does not arise. Along with the claim, no proof like appointment letter, identity card, proof of payment of salary, termination letter etc. have been placed on record. He further submitted that applicant was engaged for cleaning, sweeping, dusting at the branch/office of the bank on intermittent basis at the Zonal Stationary Centre, Meerut. It is submitted by the management that it is a nationalized bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and has branches all over the country. The bank being a public sector undertaking has got it rules, norms in the matter of recruitment of personnel in each cadre. The claimant was engaged on daily wages for an intermittent period of work and is trying to gain as “back door entry” into the employment by way of the present litigation. He submitted that claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

4. Rejoinder has been filed by the claimant. He had denied the averment made in the written statements of management no. 1 and 2 and affirmed the facts mentioned in his claim statement.

5. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 02.11.2022, following issues have been framed i.e.: (I) Whether the proceeding is maintainable. (II)Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between the claimant and the management bank. (III) Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the management. (IV) Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages.

6. In order to prove his case, workman had entered into the witness box. He has reiterated the same facts as mentioned by him in his claim statement. He has relied upon following documents i.e.:

(i) Ex. WW1/1- Copy of claim statement filed before conciliation officer.

(ii) Ex. WW1/2- Copy of WS filed by the management before conciliation officer.

(iii) Ex. WW1/3- Copy of rejoinder filed by the claimant before the Conciliation Officer.

(iv) Ex. WW1/4- Copy of written submission filed by management.

(v) Ex. WW1/5- Copy of minutes of IRM meeting held on 02.11.2019 filed by the claimant.

(vi) Ex. WW1/6- Copy of application for the post of Peon applied by the claimant in the bank.

(vii) Ex. WW1/7- Copy of interview letter sent by the PNB bank to the claimant dated 23.02.2015.

(viii) Ex. WW1/8: Copy of office order dated 18.03.2016.

(ix) Ex. WW1/9: Copy of experience letter issued by the bank to the claimant dated 19.12.2014, 08.12.2015, 14.03.2016 & 14.07.2017.

(x) Ex. WW1/10: Copy of letter dated 11.12.2015 issued by the bank for increase salary of the claimant.

(xi) Ex. WW1/11: Copy of attendance sheet issued by the bank to the claimant on April 2018.

(xii) Ex. WW1/12: Copy of salary voucher issued by the bank to the claimant dated 05.01.2011 to 28.03.2018.

(xiii) Ex. WW1/13: Copy of bank statement filed by the claimant from 01.03.2009 to 30.04.2018.

7. The workman was put to the test of cross-examination, wherein he admitted that he was not in possession of any appointment letter issued by the bank. He deposed that before his engagement, he was interviewed by the then Senior Manager, Mr. B.M. Sharma, at the Zonal Stationary Centre, Meerut. He came to know about the vacancies from the notice displayed in the notice board of the bank and then met the Senior Manager who took his interview. He also admitted that no copy or the photograph of said notice was collected by him. He admitted that one Rajeev Verma has been appointed as a permanent sweeper in the branch of the bank at Zonal Stationary Centre, Meerut. He further stated that he had also applied for the post of permanent sweeper by submitting his experience certificate for the period 2014 to 2018, but was unaware of the outcome of his application. Along with the vouchers, he had filed four experience certificates issued to him by the bank appreciating his work. He admitted that no written termination order was served upon him and that he was only directed not to report for duty. He had studied upto class 12th. After termination, for managing his livelihood, he is working sometimes on temporary basis in some shops and at times as a daily labour and earning Rs. 3000/- to 4000/- in a month.

8. In rebuttal, management filed its affidavit, exhibited as Ex. MW1/A. He has reiterated the same facts as mentioned in his written statement. He has relied upon the documents i.e.:

(i) Ex. MW1/1- Copy of circular for the process to be followed for recruitment in the sub-ordinate cadre dated 04.03.2016.

(ii) Ex. MW1/2- Copy of appointment letter/service agreement of Sh. Rajeev Verma, dated 26.06.2015.

9. The witness was put to the test of cross-examination, wherein he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the facts of the present case as the workman had never worked under his supervision. He further admitted that letters Ex. WW1/9 and office work orders Ex. WW1/8 were issued by the branch manager to the workman and that the workman had joined the bank in March, 2009 as a Peon/Daftri and worked continuously till 2018 as a daily wager. He also admitted that the workman was paid wages by the Bank through vouchers directly credited into his bank account, though no appointment letter was issued. He admitted that the document shown to him was only the performa which seems to be issued by the circle office to the workman which is Ex. WW1/7. The complaint regarding the non-appointment for the post of Peon to the applicant has been pursued by the IRM for the year 2009 to 2018 and the reply given by the management that “matter will be investigated” which is Ex. WW1/5. He further admitted that the work of a Peon is perennial in nature. The document shown to him as Ex. WW1/11 was not the attendance register of the bank. He admitted that records of vouchers were being maintained by the bank as per guidelines. He also admitted that he has not filed any voucher for the year 2009 to 2018. He submitted that the bank maintains the seniority list of the permanent employees; however, he has not filed the same. He also admitted that no material had been filed by the management to show that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere and that he could not state the date of termination or whether any notice or compensation was paid to the workman.

10. Whole of the case of the workman rests upon the premises that he has been working in the employment of management w.e.f. 01.03.2009 at the post of “Peon” at the last drawn salary was Rs. 6,000/- per month and his services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably w.e.f. 11.04.2018. He has relied upon the Ex. WW1/5 which is the copy of minutes of IRM meeting held on 02.11.2019. Considering his case, he further relied upon the document Ex. WW1/9 i.e. copy of the experience letter issued by the bank to the claimant dated 19.12.2014, 08.12.2015,

14.03.2016 & 14.07.2017 which confirms that he had joined the management in March, 2009 as a Peon/Daftri.

11. Whole of the respondent’s case rests upon the premises that there exist no relationship of the employee and employer between them, so, no question arises for any illegal termination. Accordingly the workman has been paid for the job done as and when called. Further, the management’s case is that the management is a nationalized bank and there is a recruitment process for giving the job in the subordinate cadre. Without following the recruitment process, workman cannot be given the job.

12. I have heard the argument at bar and perused the record. Before proceeding further, the texts of Sections 25F, G and H of the Act are required to be reproduced herein:

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen: No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. 25G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category,

unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 4[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re- employment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.

13. On perusal of the above said sections, it is inferred that the claimants have no absolute right to remain in the employment of the management. The management can discontinue or retrench the workmen who have completed not less than one year of service under the employer if he has given a one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or he has paid the wages in lieu of notice period. The second condition is that the retrenchment compensation shall also be paid equivalent to 15-days of average pay for every completed year of continuous service. Besides this, appropriate government shall also be informed regarding the retrenchment. Here, the management did not do anything.

14. Now, coming to the facts of this case in hand. Workman’s position stand prove from the fact that the management himself has admitted that the workman has worked with the branch w.e.f. March, 2009 and he had worked up to 2018 and several letters issued by the Branch Manager stand prove this fact. In light of the above discussion, my issue-wise findings are as follows: Issue no.-1

15. The present dispute was referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management has not placed any material on record to show that the present proceedings are barred by law and not maintainable. Accordingly, from the preponderance of evidence, it is held that the present proceedings are

maintainable before this Tribunal. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management. Issue no.-2

16. The claimant has relied upon various documents to establish his relationship with the management. At the outset, reliance is placed upon Ex. WW1/5, i.e. the minutes of the Industrial Relations Machinery meeting held on 02.11.2019. The said meeting was attended by senior officials of the management, including the Circle Head, Chief Manager and Manager HRD. In the said minutes, the grievance regarding the appointment of the claimant as permanent Peon is specifically recorded, wherein it is stated that he had worked as a temporary Peon/Daftary from April 2009 to April 2018 at Zonal Stationery Centre, Meerut. The minutes also refer to his experience certificates and office orders issued by the Circle Office. Against the said grievance, the management recorded its decision as “Matter will be investigated.”

17. The above document is further corroborated by Ex. WW1/9, an experience certificate issued by the Zonal Stationery Centre, Meerut on 19.12.2014 and signed by the Manager. The certificate records that the claimant, namely Sh. Pradeep Kaushik, had been working since March 2009 as Peon/Daftry on a temporary basis against a vacant seat, as per the record. Thus, the said document issued by the management itself records the claimant's engagement with the Bank, his designation and the period from which he was working.

18. The claimant has also relied upon Ex. WW1/12, comprising salary vouchers issued by the Bank. The vouchers bear the name of the claimant and are duly signed by the authorised officials of the Bank. The said vouchers further establish that payments were being made to the claimant by the management. Significantly, MW-1, during his cross-examination admitted that the claimant had joined the Bank in March 2009 as Peon/Daftry and had worked till 2018 as a daily wager. He further admitted that the experience letters and office orders were issued by the Branch Manager and that the claimant was paid wages by the Bank through vouchers directly credited into his bank account.

19. The mere fact that the claimant was described as a daily wager or that no formal appointment letter was issued does not disprove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The management's own witness has admitted the claimant was engaged as Peon/Daftry, he had

continuously working from 2009 till 2018 and his wages were by the Bank. He also admitted that the work of a Peon is perennial in nature.

20. Thus, Ex. WW1/5, read with the experience certificate Ex. WW1/9, salary vouchers Ex. WW1/12 and the admissions made by MW-1, clearly establish that the claimant was engaged by and worked for the management Bank as Peon/Daftry and was paid wages by the Bank. Accordingly, from the preponderance of evidence, it is held that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the management Bank. Issue No. II is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the management. Issue no.-3

21. The next question is whether the services of the claimant were illegally terminated by the management. The claimant has pleaded that he was working as Peon/Daftry with the management since March 2009 and that on 11.04.2018 he was orally directed not to report for duty. His evidence in this regard is corroborated by Ex. WW1/5, wherein his engagement as temporary Peon/Daftry at ZSC Meerut from April 2009 to April 2018 is recorded. Ex. WW1/9 also records that he had been working as Peon/Daftry since March 2009. Further, MW-1 himself admitted that the claimant had joined the Bank in March 2009 and had worked till 2018 as a daily wager.

22. The claimant has further deposed that no notice was issued to him and no retrenchment compensation was paid at the time his services were discontinued. The management has not produced any termination order, notice, proof of payment of retrenchment compensation or any other document showing that provisions of Section 25F of the Act were complied with before terminating his services. Rather, MW-1, during cross- examination, admitted that he could not state the date of termination of the claimant or whether any notice or compensation was paid to him.

23. The mere description of the claimant as a daily wager does not take his termination outside the scope of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. The material on record shows that the claimant had worked with the management for several years. The management's own witness admitted that he had worked from March 2009 till 2018 and further admitted that the work of a Peon is perennial in nature.

24. Section 25F of the Act prescribes the conditions precedent to retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not

less than one year. The employer is required to comply with the requirements regarding notice or wages in lieu thereof and payment of retrenchment compensation before retrenching aworkman. The Supreme Court has also held that termination by way of retrenchment without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act renders the termination legally ineffective. Before proceeding further, text of section 25F of the Act is required to be reproduced herein: 25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen: No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

25. In the present case, the management has failed to establish that any notice was served upon the claimant or that retrenchment compensation was paid to him before discontinuing his services. No material has also been placed on record to establish compliance with the statutory provisions of the ACt. Therefore, the termination of the claimant's services without compliance with the mandatory provisions the Act cannot be sustained. The action of the management in preventing the claimant from discharging his duties, without any notice or compensation is in violation of section 25 of the Act, and therefore, is held to be illegal and unjustified. Issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management. The question that now arises is with regard to the relief to which the claimant is entitled. As a general rule, where termination is held to be illegal, reinstatement with full back wages is an appropriate relief. However, it is well settled that reinstatement is not an automatic relief of an illegal termination and the relief may be moulded by the Industrial

Adjudicator according to the facts and circumstances of each case. Keeping in view that the claimant had rendered approximately nine years of service with the management, the manner in which his services were discontinued, the fact that he was working as a Peon/Daftry on temporary basis, and the prolonged litigation pursued by him in respect of his claim, this Tribunal considers it appropriate to mould the relief by awarding lump- sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) is considered just and reasonable. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the claimant Sh. Pradeep Kaushik, in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits, within two months from the date of publication of this Award, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Award till its realization. A copy of this Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for notification under Section 17 of the Act. The file be consigned to the Record Room. ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated 05.10.2026 Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II