IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1272 of 2006()
1. M.PREMAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LABOUR COURT,
... Respondent
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :13/10/2009
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1272 OF 2006
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single
Judge confirming the order of the Labour Court declining appellant’s
eligibility for retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the I.D.
Act. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.
George Thomas appearing for the State Bank of India. The appellant
was empaneled by the Bank for engagement in casual work in the
Bank. He was given employment as messenger from 1985 onwards.
Intermittently he was appointed for several days in several years.
However, ever since 1997 the Bank discontinued engagement of the
appellant. In 1999 Government referred the appellant’s claim for
retrenchment compensation to the Labour Court. The specific case of
the appellant is that during 1994 he has worked 284 days which
qualifies him for retrenchment compensation. However, the Labour
Court found that appellant’s claim is contrary to the settlement which
2
the Bank had with the representatives of the Unions. This is confirmed
by the learned single Judge against which this Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Even though counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment
of the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1584 of 2002, we do not find any
justification to uphold the claim of the appellant that the settlement is
against statute and cannot be enforced. Under the settlement, Bank was
disabled from engaging persons from outside the panel prepared by it.
In fact the settlement provides for giving permanent employment to
some of the temporary workers. We find that but for the settlement, the
Bank would have been free to select persons of their choice for regular
employment and they were not bound to give casual employment to
those in the panel. In other words, but for the settlement, appellant
would not have been employed for so long a period to entitle him for
statutory benefit. we are of the view that larger benefit available under
the settlement was permanent employment for some of the persons and
if settlement is declared invalid, the same would affect those who are
absorbed on regular basis. Since the restriction was imposed on the
Bank against employment of casual workers, except from the panel, the
3
Bank gave employment beyond 240 days to the appellant during a year.
Unless the settlement provides for any other benefit, in our view,
appellant cannot claim benefit under Section 25F based on his
employment under the settlement, which took away the freedom of the
Bank to employ outsiders on casual basis. We therefore do not find
any merit in the claim of the appellant. However, if the Branch of the
Bank ever thinks of employing casual workers, we feel, in fairness,
they will utilise the service of the appellant in preference to others, as
he was found loyal and suitable during the period of employment.
W.A. is dismissed with the above observations.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(V.K. MOHANAN)
Judge.
kk
4