State Bank Of India vs Shri Giriraj Prasad Sharma
2011 Latest Caselaw 2127 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of decision: 20th April, 2011

+                                W.P.(C) 6881/2009

         STATE BANK OF INDIA                                      ..... Petitioner
                     Through:                 Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate.

                                          Versus

         SHRI GIRIRAJ PRASAD SHARMA                               ..... Respondent
                       Through: None.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                         NO
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                        NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported                       NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 10th July, 2008 of the Labour

Court deciding the following reference:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Giri Raj Prasad Sharma, Water Boy, S/o. Sh. Chiranji Lal Sharma w.e.f. 18.05.1996 is just and fair? If not, to what relief the

workman concerned is entitled."

as under:-

"The action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Giri Raj Prasad Sharma, Water Boy, S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal Sharma w.e.f. 18.05.1996 is neither just nor fair. The workman applicant is not entitled to reinstatement. He is only entitled to compensation of ` 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only). The management should make payment of `50,000/- within two months from the date of the publication of the award.

The award is given accordingly."

2. Notice of the petition was issued and subject to the petitioner

depositing a sum of ` 50,000/- in this court, the operation of the award was

stayed. The amount to be deposited by the petitioner was directed to be

kept in a fixed deposit.

3. The respondent workman has filed a counter affidavit in which he

has also prayed for setting aside of the award in so far as awarding the

relief of compensation only to the respondent workman and has sought the

relief of reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner has filed a

rejoinder to the said counter affidavit.

4. None has been appearing for the respondent workman for the last

several dates, in fact since after the filing of the counter affidavit. Today

also none appears for the respondent workman. The respondent is

proceeded against ex parte. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

5. The respondent workman claimed to be working since 11th April,

1994 with the Kirby Place, Delhi Cantonment Branch of the petitioner

Bank as a Waterboy, a class IV post and claimed his services to have been

unjustifiably terminated on 18th May, 1996. It was the defence of the

petitioner that the respondent was not appointed through the recruitment

process, was engaged as a casual labour for one hour or so on daily basis to

fill the water coolers in the said branch of the petitioner Bank and to keep

them in a working condition and in fact the services of the respondent had

been provided to the said branch by the supplier of the coolers.

6. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led found that

payment had been made by the said branch of the petitioner Bank to the

respondent workman by vouchers on daily basis sometimes at `30/-,

sometimes at `40/- and sometimes at `28/-. The Labour Court concluded

that the respondent workman was paid for the days he performed the work

and held that the respondent workman did not qualify as a muster roll

casual labour also and had not worked against any sanctioned post but was

engaged only on need basis. However finding the respondent workman to

have worked for more than 240 days, it was held that he was entitled only

to retrenchment compensation and which was assessed at ` 50,000/-.

7. The Apex Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel

(2005) 6 SCC 454 has reiterated the settled position that this Court in

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can

refuse to interfere even where the order or action impugned is found to be

erroneous or illegal. The present case, considering the compensation

awarded, the status of the petitioner Bank, the litigation and the Court

costs, is found to be of such a nature and it is not deemed expedient to keep

this petition pending. The petitioner Bank is reminded that by keeping this

petition pending, it also runs the risk of facing the claim of the respondent

workman for reinstatement. It is therefore deemed expedient to dismiss this

writ petition but with the clarification that the order of the Labour Court

shall not be treated as a precedent neither in other proceedings against the

petitioner Bank or other banks before the Labour Courts/Industrial

Tribunals nor will the disposal of this writ petition be treated as this Court

having affirmed the order of the Labour Court impugned herein. The

questions of law raised in the petition are also left open for decision in an

appropriate matter.

8. The awarded amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court under

interim orders aforesaid together with interest if any accrued thereon be

released to the respondent workman. Till the respondent workman applies

for withdrawal of the amount, the amount be kept in a recurring fixed

deposit. It is further clarified that the withdrawal of the amount by the

respondent workman will also bar the respondent workman from agitating

the matter further.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) April 20th , 2011 pp..