Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 213 (PAT)

Uco Bank Through Assistant General Manager v. Union Of India

2004-02-23

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2004
Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Merely because a provision of a letters patent appeal exists in the charter of the Patna High Court is no reason that this provision will be available to the State or such bodies which partake the nature of the State to create another litigation. The court has reservation whether the provision of the letters patent appeal was utilized by the Crown to create a litigation. The State today is in no different position. 3. Let the court take this case as how it breeds injustice. The issues between the parties became the subject matter of a conciliation proceeding. When conciliation failed, the matter was referred for adjudication to an industrial tribunal on a cause espoused by the workers union. This was a reference no. 23 of 2000. After the conclusion of adjudication the industrial tribunal held the reference in favour of the workmen. They were entitled to regularization or confirmed on the job of Watermen-cum-Peons and entitled to benefits and facilities which are given to permanent workmen on the same post. 4. Merely because the Bank, a Public Sector Bank, has the resources to chase a litigation, it does not mean that all avenues of litigations are available as of right. 5. The bank filed a certiorari action complaining that the decision of the industrial tribunal on the reference was in error. The learned judge hearing the petition certified that this was not so and did not subject the decision of the industrial tribunal to a certiorari proceeding. The award of the industrial tribunal was, in fact, certified to be correct. 6. The very purpose of an industrial adjudication will be defeated and frustrated if there is an ever ending chase right up to the provision of the letters patent appeal. The letters patent appeal jurisdiction rests on justice, equity and good conscience. The court has reservation whether it is meant to destroy an award which has gone in favour of a party and has been subjected to a test in one division of a court and certified to be correct or otherwise. 7. Dismissed.