Bombay High Court
Babasaheb Natha Gadekar vs Central Bank Of India & Another on 23 June, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1
7 WRIT PETITION NO.3256.1995.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3256 OF 1995
Babasaheb S/o Natha Gadekar,
Age : Major, Occ :Nil,
R/o. Phalkewadi (Sultanpur Khurd),
Tq. Shevagaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER
V E R S U S
1.
Central Bank of India,
Tilak Road, Ahmednagar,
through its Regional Manager.
2. The State of Maharashtra.
( Copy to be served on Govt.
Pleader, High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad). ... RESPONDENT
...
Mr. N. K. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. N. T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. W. Munde, AGP for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : P. R. BORA, J.
DATE : 23rd June, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:27:28 :::
2
7 WRIT PETITION NO.3256.1995.odt
2 Perused the impugned award passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Reference No.CGIT-2/5 of
1993. The present Petitioner had raised a dispute about his alleged
termination from the services of the Respondent / Bank and
accordingly a reference was made by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and was forwarded for adjudication to
the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. Before the
Tribunal, it was the contention of the present Petitioner that though he
had continuously worked for years together with the Respondent /
Bank and though in each preceding year before his alleged
termination he worked continuously for the period of more than 240
days, his services were orally terminated. The Petitioner had,
therefore, sought relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and
with back-wages.
3 Per contra, it was the contention of the Respondent /
Bank before the Tribunal that the Petitioner had never worked
continuously with Respondent / Bank much less for 240 days
continuously in any preceding year and was therefore, not liable for
any relief. It was further contended that the appointment provided to
the Petitioner was purely on temporary basis and before his
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:27:28 :::
3
7 WRIT PETITION NO.3256.1995.odt
appointment, due procedure was not followed. It was also contended
that Petitioner, being a temporary workman, was not entitled to claim
any benefit available to the regularly appointed permanent workman.
The learned Industrial Tribunal after having assessed the evidence
brought before it, dismissed the reference so filed by the present
Petitioner. Said order has been challenged by the Petitioner in the
present petition.
4
The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought
to contend that the learned Tribunal has failed in appreciating that the
present Petitioner had continuously worked with the Respondent /
Bank though in different names and as such was liable to be made
permanent in the service of the Respondent / Bank and at least he
could not have been terminated without following due process of law.
In view of the discussion made by the Tribunal that the Petitioner had
failed in proving the fact that he had continuously worked with
Respondent / Bank and further that his appointment was not made by
following due process of law, no fault can be found in the conclusion
arrived at by the Tribunal. There is no substance in the petition so
filed. I do not see any reason to cause any interference in the
impugned order. Hence the following order -
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:27:28 :::
4
7 WRIT PETITION NO.3256.1995.odt
O R D E R
The writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the
case, no order as to costs. Rule discharged
[ P. R. BORA, J. ]
ndm
