1 140317 judg.wp 2339.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.2339 of 2000
Ravindra s/o Manikrao Gawande,
age 35 years, Occupation service,
resident of Mocharda, Post Nalwade,
Tahsil Daryapur, District Amravati .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] Central Bank of India,
Chandernukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 002,
through General Manager.
2] Central Bank of India,
Regional Office, Kakani Oil Mill Compound,
Dharamdaya Cotton Fund Road, Amravati,
through Regional Manager.
3] Central Bank of India,
Lead Bank Cell, Bhatkuli, Distt- Amravati
through Branch Manager.
4] The District Employment Exchange,
Irvin Chowk, Amravati.
5] The Director General Employment Exchange,
Shramshakti Bhawan, Kundan Manson,
Rani Marg, New Delhi . .... Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for resp. nos. 4 and 5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:47:09 :::
2 140317 judg.wp 2339.00.odt
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
th Dated : 14 March, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) The matter was heard finally on 10-03-2017. Nobody appeared for the respondent-employer. The matter came to be adjourned to today. Today again there is no appearance for the employer. 2] Learned Advocate Mrs. Deshpande for the petitioner submits that, as per the policy decision taken by the Bank on 04-02-1998, the Part Time Safai Karmacharis (PTSK) who have worked for 90 days' in any one year during 01-01-1982 to 31-03-1995, need to be regularized. The petitioner worked during that period. She submits that, even if the period in dispute is overlooked, the bank has in paragraph 3 of its submissions accepted 97 days' service between 02-04-1993 to 07-07-1993, thereafter, it has also accepted that in 1992, he has worked for 30 days'. According to her, as the service put in 1993 is in excess of 90 days', the above mentioned Circular applies and the petitioner needed to be regularized. 3] The learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the submissions of the respondents to urge that, there only the defence is of absence of 'No Objection Certificate' from the Employment Exchange. She contends that the communication of vacancy with bank to the Employment Exchange was not compulsory and as such that 'No Objection Certificate' ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:47:09 ::: 3 140317 judg.wp 2339.00.odt was not necessary. She further points out that during the pendency of this petition and on 03-12-2010, the Regional Office of the Central Bank of India has forwarded a communication to its Central Office, Mumbai, wherein, it has been categorically stated that, on 30-10-2006, the Bank has clarified that the 'No Objection Certificate' from the Employment Exchange was not required for such an unskilled cadre. She has produced that communication on record. The said communication is marked as 'X' for the purposes of identification.
4] In the backdrop of these contentions, we looked into the case of the petitioner. The submissions filed by respondent no.2-Bank to oppose the admission of Writ Petition are sworn in by Shri V.C. Ghatwai, Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Amravati. In that affidavit, in paragraph 3, he has accepted the service in excess of 90 days' put in by the petitioner in 1994. The claim of the petitioner that the petitioner worked as a temporary employee in Class-IV category has been strongly denied by him. However, he has stated that as per the records available with bank, the petitioner worked in Lead Bank Cell, Amravati during period 1992 to 31-12-1994 for 137 days'. This reply, therefore, shows that in 1994, the petitioner completed 90 days' as envisaged in letter dated 04-02-2008. 5] In this reply, it is pointed out in paragraph 19 that, it was mandatory for the bank to notify the vacancies under Rule of the year 1959 and fill up the same through the Employment Exchange only. This communication is ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:47:09 ::: 4 140317 judg.wp 2339.00.odt dated 15-09-1998.
6] This communication dated 15-09-1998 is sent by the Assistant Director, District Employment and Self Employment Guidance Center, Amravati to the Regional Manager of Central Bank. It is after 04-02-1998 and it is not apparent how it has got bearing on the policy decision of the bank.
7] The Exhibit 'X' mentioned supra is dated 03-12-2010. Therein the name of the present petitioner figures at serial no.3. The communication in paragraph 4 states that, the regional office had already clarified that the 'No Objection Certificate' from the Employment Exchange Office was not required.
8] Perusal of that communication also shows that the decision on the regularization of the petitioner was not taken as the present Writ Petition was/is pending. The Deputy General Manager has earnestly requested the Assistant General Manager to consider the absorption of said employees including petitioner. Their regularization in bank was proposed if the candidates whose names figured in that letter, withdrew their Court cases. 9] We, therefore, find that the decision on regularization of the petitioner was avoided only because of this Writ Petition. Learned Advocate Mrs. Deshpande for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:47:09 ::: 5 140317 judg.wp 2339.00.odt judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, reported in 2016(2) Mh.L.J. 490. In that judgment, the Hon'ble apex Court has, in similar circumstances, found continuation of part time employees against the permanent post an unfair labour practice. The appropriate directions have been issued to employer in this matter. She invites our attention to the fact that the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, is also looked into in said judgment.
10] Here, as we find that, the bank did not proceed with the proposed regularization because of the pendency of present Writ Petition, we are inclined to direct the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to take suitable decision regarding the regularization of the petitioner within three months from today. If necessary, the opportunity of hearing shall also be provided to the petitioner.
11] With these directions and with liberty to the petitioner to approach again, if the grievance survives thereafter, we dispose of the petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:47:09 :::