Shri. Gajanan S/O. Sakharam Kale vs The Asstt. Gen. Manager S.B.I. And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 150 Bom

                                                      1                               208.WP.525-2011.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 525 OF 2011
                       ( Shri Gajanan s/o Sakharam Kale
                                      Vs.
            The Asstt. General Manager, State Bank Of India, & Ors. )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                            Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. D.M. Surjuse, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                                  Mr. Yash Kullarwar, Advocate h/f Mr. M. Anilkumar, Advocate for the
                                  Respondent No.1.



                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 05th JANUARY, 2023

Mr. Surjuse, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 525/2011 submits, that the matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 para 34 to 36 , which after considering Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, holds that the Industrial and Labour Courts are not thereby denuded of their powers under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of the unfair labour practice on part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV, wherein the post on which they have been working exists. It is contended, that the petitioner herein was working on the post of Messenger from 2 208.WP.525-2011.odt

04.01.1988 to 08.03.1997 and thereafter upon his reinstatement being done in pursuance to the order of CGIT dated 20.05.2003, from 02.01.2004 till 31.01.2005, which would indicate the existence of a permanent post of Messenger available with the State Bank of India. The petitioner, again came to be terminated by the order dated 31.01.2005, which has been challenged before the learned CGIT, which has passed the impugned order, ignoring the above position that from 1988 to 1997 and 2004 till 2005, the petitioner has been employed by the State Bank of India.

2. Mr. Surjuse, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits, that juniors to the petitioner, have been included in the waiting list and have subsequently being regularized, for which he relies upon the list at page 36, out of which, the persons at serial No. 10 Sunil Bhagwantrao Anpat, serial No.18 Anantgir Mohangir Giri, serial No. 25 Hiralal Ramsingh Thakur and serial No.30 Pratapshingh Dashratsing Rajode have been regularized, inspite of the fact that the petitioner has worked more number of days i.e. 358 days and secured more marks i.e. 93 marks than the aforesaid persons.

3. List the matter on 07.01.2023 so as to enable Mr. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, to make an appropriate statement in this regard.

Signed By:SHRIKANT DAMODHAR BHIMTE JUDGE Signing Date:06.01.2023 14:19 SD. Bhimte