THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.399 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Anurag Bajpai, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. R.Anil Reddy, learned Government
Pleader for Labour Department for respondent No.1. We
have also heard Mr. K.Nirmal Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.22932 of 2009 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant is Vardhaman (Mahila) Co-operative Urban Bank Limited (briefly, 'the bank' hereinafter). One Sri K. Kanaka Ratnam was appointed in the bank as a 2 sub-staff with effect from 06.05.1999 on consolidated pay of Rs.1,000.00 per month for a period of twelve months. This period was construed to be on probation. After completion of the aforesaid period of twelve months, he was continued as sub-staff by increasing the consolidated payment from time to time. Questioning the action of the bank in not regularising his services, All India SC/ST Bank Employees Confederation, A.P Unit, raised an industrial dispute pursuant to which Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Rt.No.352 dated 08.02.2005 and made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court-I (Labour Court) on the following question:
Whether the action of the management of the bank in not confirming the services of Sri K. Kanaka Ratnam, sub-staff, even after completion of five years of service is justified; if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
4. The said dispute was registered as Industrial Dispute No.70 of 2005. After a detailed adjudication, Labour Court 3 passed an award dated 08.04.2009 holding that the workman had completed the probation period of twelve months on 05.05.2000. Therefore, he would be entitled to the regular post on completion of the said twelve months. In other words, the workman would be entitled to regularisation in the post of sub-staff with effect from 06.05.2000 along with the service benefits. Accordingly, by the award dated 08.04.2009, Labour Court directed regularisation of service of the workman Sri K. Kanaka Ratnam in the bank in the post of sub-staff with effect from 06.05.2000.
5. This came to be challenged by the bank before this Court by filing the related writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated 28.10.2022 held as follows:
5. While passing the Award, the Labour Court-I observed that nowhere the management could establish that the services of the employee were not satisfactory. It was further observed that the management failed to show that the probationary period of the employee was extended beyond 12 months because of his unsatisfactory service and hence it must be presumed that the work of the employee for 12 calendar months 4 continuously from the date of his joining in the service was satisfactory. When the employee completed 12 months of probation period satisfactorily he was entitled for regularization on completion of 12 months of work. The witness examined on behalf of the management stated in his evidence that the respondent bank called for sponsoring the names of persons from employment exchange for the post of sub-staff in the respondent bank for the clear vacancies. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was no clear vacancy for regularizing the petitioner in the post of sub-staff after his completion of 12 months of probation. Therefore, the respondent - Bank failed to make out its case on all counts. On the other hand, the employee had completed the probation period of 12 months by 05.05.2000. Hence from 06.05.2000 he is certainly entitled to be regularized.
6. Having regard to the observations made by the Labour Court-I in its Award and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no merit in this writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. We find no error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
7. Labour Court upon a detailed analysis of pleadings and evidence on record had arrived at a definite conclusion 5 that the workman was on probation period for twelve months which he had successfully completed on 05.05.2000. On successful completion of the probation period, the workman was entitled to regularisation.
8. Learned Single Judge has affirmed such finding returned by the Labour Court by pointing out that the bank could not point out any instance of unsatisfactory service rendered by the workman during the period of probation or even thereafter till regularisation. As a matter of fact, bank had regularised the service of the workman with effect from 29.11.2006 which both the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge found to be not justified; regularisation ought to have been with effect from 06.05.2000.
9. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ appeal.
10. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 28.03.2023 vs