Ravindra S/O Manikrao Gawande vs Central Bank Of India & 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 703 Bom

                                                    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'

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

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

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