State Bank of India vs Shri Giriraj Prasad Sharma

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petition impugns the order dated 10th July, 2008 of the Labor 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 Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only). The management should make payment of Rs. 50,000/- within two months from the date of the publication of the award. The award is given accordingly.

Notice of the petition was issued and subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 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.

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.

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 party. The counsel for the Petitioner has been heard.

The Respondent workman claimed to be working since 11th April, 1994 with the Kirby Place, Delhi Cantonment Branch of the Petitioner Bank as a Water boy, a class IV post and claimed his services to have been unjustifiably terminated on 18th May, 1996. It was the defense of the Petitioner that the Respondent was not appointed through the recruitment process, was engaged as a casual labor 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.

The Labor 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 Rs. 30/-, sometimes at Rs. 40/- and sometimes at Rs. 28/-. The Labor 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 labor 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 Rs. 50,000/-.

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 Labor Court shall not be treated as a precedent neither in other proceedings against the Petitioner Bank or other banks before the Labor Courts/Industrial Tribunals nor will the disposal of this writ petition be treated as this Court having affirmed the order of the Labor Court impugned herein. The questions of law raised in the petition are also left open for decision in an appropriate matter.

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.