Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative ... vs The Labour Court
2023 Latest Caselaw 1438 Tel

         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

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

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

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

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.

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