JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the award dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No.08 of 2011, whereby and where under, the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad directed the writ petitioner-State Bank of India, Dhanbad to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent no.3-workman as compensation within one month of publication of the award. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the appropriate government being the Central Government, in Ministry of Labour in exercise of the power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad for adjudication:- “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating services of Shri Kapli Deo Sharma, Water boy w.e.f. 08.10.2004 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?” 4. The case of the respondent no.3-Workman is that he was appointed as a water boy on a monthly remuneration of Rs.900/- w.e.f. 28.02.1991 by the Management of State Bank of India, Dhanbad and the Management has posted him in the clearing house. The respondent no.3-Workman was continuously discharging the duties of water boy till 07.10.2004 and he received remuneration of the said period. In the year 1998, the Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India, Dhanbad has forwarded his name to the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India for his absorption as permanent employee vide letter dated 02.03.1998 mentioning that the workman had been working since 28.02.1991 but the Management terminated the services of the respondent no.3-Workman on 07.10.2004 without complying the mandatory provision of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman worked for 240 days in each and every year at the time of termination of the services but the Management without issuing any notice under Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not made payment of any retrenchment compensation before terminating the services. 5. The workman worked for 240 days in each and every year at the time of termination of the services but the Management without issuing any notice under Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not made payment of any retrenchment compensation before terminating the services. 5. On the other hand the Management of State Bank of India took the plea that the workman never worked in Dhanbad Branch of State Bank of India in any capacity rather he used to work in the clearing house which is an independent body/association and is a separate entity established as per the instruction of the Reserve Bank of India and the only connection of State Bank of India with the clearing house is that at the relevant time, the Branch Manager of State Bank of India which has been re-designated as Assistant General Manager, used to act as president of clearing house and the clearing house opened a current account with State Bank of India for depositing and operating the funds generated from subscription of member banks and for meeting all expenses of the clearing house and the clearing house was functioning from the premises of State Bank of India, Dhanbad. The concerned workman Kapil Deo Sharma was engaged as a water boy for providing water and tea to the members of the clearing house for two to three hours on remuneration of Rs.900/- and payment was made to him by the clearing house. The workman left the work on his own on 14.08.2004 and his son Amod Kumar Sharma worked from 01.09.2004 to 11.04.2005 hence, it is contended that since workman voluntarily left the work on his own on 14.08.2004 therefore, the question of payment of retrenchment compensation by the bank does not arise. 6. In support of his case, the respondent no.3-Workman examined himself as a sole witness. He admitted working as a messenger at clearing house from 10:00 am to 08:00 pm regularly and used to put rubber stamp on the cheques and carry the bag of cheques to new building of State Bank of India where he used to distribute the cheques to all the representatives of different banks. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he filed his appointment letter issued by Branch Manager but the bank has not issue any I.D. card to him. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he filed his appointment letter issued by Branch Manager but the bank has not issue any I.D. card to him. He admitted that he was working in the clearing house of the bank but denied the suggestion that clearing house is not a part of State Bank of India. The workman proved the documents which have been marked as Ext.W-1 to W-2. 7. The Management also examined one witness namely Ashok Kumar Barnwal which categorically stated that the workman Kapil Deo Sharma was never appointed by the State Bank of India and he never worked in Dhanbad Branch of State Bank of India in any capacity. He also corroborated the contention of State Bank of India as made in its written statement filed before the Tribunal. He has also stated that clearing house was not under the control of State Bank of India and Ext.W-1 which is the appointment letter of the workman categorically shows that the workman was appointed as water boy clearing house since 28.02.1991. 8. He has also stated that clearing house was not under the control of State Bank of India and Ext.W-1 which is the appointment letter of the workman categorically shows that the workman was appointed as water boy clearing house since 28.02.1991. 8. The learned Tribunal in paragraph no.16 of the award has categorically mentioned that Ext.W-1 which is the photocopy of the written note sheet of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dhanbad to the Manager, Account & Administration shows that Kapil Deo Sharma has been appointed as water boy for clearing house on monthly remuneration of Rs.900/- on a purely temporary basis w.e.f. 28.02.1991 and it has been mentioned in the said note sheet that remuneration would be paid from the subscription received from the members of the clearing house and in paragraph no.18, the learned Tribunal has observed that it is apparent that the workman Kapil Deo Sharma had been appointed on purely temporary basis as water boy w.e.f. 28.02.1991 in clearing house which was managed by the State Bank of India, Dhanbad as the Branch Manager of State Bank of India Dhanbad was acting as a president of clearing house and he was holding the sitting of the member of the different banks in the premises of State Bank of India, Dhanbad Branch and the clearing house was managed by the staff of the State Bank of India and the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India had been managing it and came to the conclusion that the workman namely Kapil Deo Sharma has worked purely on temporary basis as a water boy in clearing house managed by the State Bank of India, Dhanbad since 28.02.1991 and he has been removed from service w.e.f. 08.10.2004. The Ext.W-2 and Ext.W-4 are the documents of the Management of the concerned workman so the concerned workman was “in continuous service” in the State Bank of India, Dhanbad as per definition mentioned under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and there is also evidence that the concerned workman was removed from service w.e.f. 08.10.2004 without giving any notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment/removal and he has not been paid compensation and as the workman has been removed without complying the provision of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Tribunal directed the writ petitioner-State Bank of India to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the concerned workman namely Kapil Deo Sharma. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has committed a perversity by failing to take into consideration the fact that the clearing house is run by member banks and the member banks in the clearing house, communicate between themselves with regard to affairs of the clearing house. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent no.3-Workman was not a workman qua the bank; as he was admittedly engaged on purely temporary basis in clearing house, which is an establishment established under the rules and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and run by the members of the clearing house who are participating members of clearing house and who are utilizing the clearing house and hence, the Tribunal erroneously saddled the writ petitioner-State Bank of India with the liability to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defend the award and opposes the prayer to quash the award dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No.08 of 2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that the very fact that vide Exhibits W-4 and W-2 i.e the said letter dated 02.03.1998, the Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India has mentioned that inter alia the workman Kapil Deo Sharma working more than 240 days in 12 months period from 28.02.1991 against vacancies due to leave/transfer/promotion/retirement/death etc. of the permanent employee from time to time; the same goes to show that the respondent no.3-Workman continued to be an employee of the bank till his termination of service on 07.10.2004. Hence, it is submitted that the respondent no.3-Workman though was deputed in the clearing house yet he was deputed as an employee of State Bank of India like the employees in the clerical cadre, who were also discharging their duties in the clearing house and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in awarding compensation. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it has categorically been mentioned in the Ext.W-1 which the respondent no.3-Workman claims to be his appointment letter; but in fact that is a communication between the Branch Manager and the Manager (Accounts & Administration) of State Bank of India, categorically shows the appointment of respondent no.3-Workman as water boy, was for the clearing house at a monthly remuneration of Rs.900/-. The remuneration was to be paid from the subscription received from the members of the clearing house. In view of this undisputed facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal committed a grave illegality and perversity, by holding that the respondent no.3-Workman was an employee of the State Bank of India; because had the respondent no.3-Workman been the employee of State Bank of India, no way the remuneration of him had been paid by the subscription received from the members of the clearing house; as had he been an employee of State Bank of India, like the personnel in the clerical cadre, he would be getting the salary from the State Bank of India, itself and not from the subscription received by the members of the clearing house, which was undisputedly deposited in the current account with the State Bank of India. Moreover, in order to be entitled to the condition precedent as envisaged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondent no.3-Workman ought to have established that from 08.10.2003 to 07.10.2004 he was in service of the writ petitioner-State Bank of India for at least 240 days but there is no specific evidence in this respect and the reason for the same is not difficult to fathom as since admittedly, the respondent no.3-Workman was discharging his duty for the “bankers clearance house” which was a separate entity as is evident from the undisputed fact that it was having a current account with the State Bank of India, Dhanbad Branch, the number of which has also been mentioned in the written statement of the writ petitioner-Management, filed before the Tribunal. Thus, without any specific evidence to establish the fact, that the respondent no.3-Workman worked for at least 240 days between 08.10.2003 to 07.10.2004, the date on which the services of the respondent no.3-Workman was allegedly terminated, the learned Tribunal committed a perversity by holding that the writ petitioner-State Bank of India, Dhanbad Branch has violated in adhering to the condition precedent as envisaged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that without any evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent no.3-Workman was employed by the writ petitioner-State Bank of India from 08.10.2003 to 07.10.2004 at least for 240 days, the learned Tribunal committed a grave illegality by saddling the writ petitioner-State Bank of India with the liability to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent no.3-Workman. 13. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No.08 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. 14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.