AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Contempt petition by the petitioner in WP No 14863 of 2008, which came to be disposed. of on 8-8-2011, as under:
The petitioner claims to be appointed as a Peon in the 2nd respondent bank on 15.10.1997. The 2nd respondent was said to have been invited for an interview to consider him for appointment of a peon on temporary basis. The petitioner''s case was considered and he was accordingly appointed as a peon on temporary basis. He was paid wages of Rs. 50/- per day. The bank did not choose to issue any appointment order. The petitioner''s repeated requests in this regard was not considered. After extracting his services over the years, the petitioner was summarily discharged from service by a letter dated 10.06.2008 without issuing any order of discharge. The petitioner immediately made a representation for re-consideration of the same. The bank having not responded, the petitioner had got issued a legal notice dated 10.07.2008. The respondent bank has chosen to ignore the same. The petitioner further claims that he has not been paid his wages from January 2008 to the end of May 2008. It is unfortunate that the respondent-bank, though represented by counsel, has not choosen to address the present petition.
However, if the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis for more than 240 days in a year and he has been summarily removed from such service, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation as provided in law. Therefore, the petition is allowed to the limited extent and the 2nd respondent is directed to pay the compensation considering the petitioner as a retrenched employee and without driving the petitioner to further proceedings before any other forum. The petitioner should be paid the compensation in accordance with law after ascertaining the number of days of service that has been extracted from the petitioner. The bank would be in a position to make this payment without driving the petitioner to further proceedings as already pointed out. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Contempt petition is on the premise that though there was a direction to the second accused to pay compensation to the complainant as retrenchment compensation in terms of the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, the Act], it has not been paid; that there is disobedience and disregard of the court order by the accused and therefore they have committed contempt.
Notice had been issued to the accused and the second accused is represented by counsel Sri R Narayana and an affidavit of second accused is placed before the court, indicating, inter alia, that the accused persons had responded to the court direction; that in terms of the direction, the matter was considered and a reply dated 12-3-2012 [copy at Annexure-R2 to the affidavit] was sent, indicating that the complainant had worked only for a period of 66 days in all, i.e. 15 days in August, 2001, 25 days in September, 2011 and 26 days in October, 2001 and wages for this period has been paid and the complainant having not worked for more than 240 days in a given year, there is no question of paying any compensation u/s 25F of the Act.
A perusal of the impugned order also indicates that direction had been issued on an assumption that if the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days he would be entitled for retrenchment compensation. Even in the representation relating to the year 2008, it is claimed by the complainant that he had been discharged illegally, only indicates that he had worked from January, 2008 to the end of May 2008 and this also does not make up 240 days in a calendar year.
On the other hand, Sri R Narayana, learned counsel for the accused persons submits that the complainant had not rendered any service during 2008 and it is only during the period in 2001, as indicated in Annexure-R2, he had been engaged on temporary basis and he had been duly remunerated. In the circumstance, we do not find any occasion to proceed in contempt jurisdiction as against the accused persons. Contempt petition dismissed.