*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th May, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 3375/2011
% SHIS RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K. Vasdev & Mr. Avninder
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil K. Sangal & Mr. Deba P.
Mohanty, Advocates for R-1 & 2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
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 petitioner impugns the award dated 18 th June, 2010 of the
Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:
“Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India
in terminating the services of Sh. Shish Ram S/o Sh. MahavirW.P.(C)3375/2011 Page 1 of 7
Singh, Sorter-cum-Messenger w.e.f. 2003 is just and legal? If
not what relief the workman is entitled to.”as under:
“In view of the foregoing discussions, it is evident that the
claimant has miserably failed to establish that he was
appointed against a post, on which he has a right to continue.
He could not show that his disengagement amounted to
retrenchment. He could not attribute any illegality,
unjustifiability or impropriety to the action of the Management
in terminating his services. His claim is devoid of merits. The
same is dismissed. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be
sent to the appropriate Government for publication.”
2. The petitioner claims that he was working as a Sorter-cum-
Messenger with effect from 1st January, 1995 in the Canteen of the
respondent Bank on daily wages as and when requirement arose of the
respondent Bank and from the year 1999 to 2003 in the Stationery division.
He further claims that he so worked in the Stationery division for 1073
days on daily wages. It is the claim of the petitioner that he worked for 254
days in the year 1999, for 259 days in the year 2000, for 252 days in the
year 2001, for 256 days in the year 2002 and for 52 days in the year 2003.
He further claims that his services were terminated on 15 th April, 2003 and
with effect from 16th April, 2003 he was not permitted entry into the
W.P.(C)3375/2011 Page 2 of 7
respondent Bank.
3. The respondent Bank denied that the petitioner had so worked. It
was the case of the respondent Bank that the petitioner was occasionally
engaged on casual basis for doing odd jobs purely of casual nature.
4. The Industrial Adjudicator found that the petitioner had not been
issued any appointment letter; that he was not recruited as per the
procedure of recruitment prescribed in the Rules of the respondent Bank;
that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had worked continuously with
the respondent Bank for even 240 days; that he never acquired the status of
a “workman” within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act; that
appointment on daily wages cannot be claimed for a regular employment
and which would be a backdoor entry detrimental to efficient service and
encourage corruption; that thus the disengagement of the services of the
petitioner did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section
2(oo) of the Act; that his services did not continue against a particular job
for continuous period of 240 days as contemplated by Section 25B of the
Act and the petitioner had not rendered continuous service for 240 days
W.P.(C)3375/2011 Page 3 of 7
against any job and his discontinuance did not amount to termination of
services; that at one stage the respondent Bank had regularized temporary
employees by a bipartite agreement but that was prior to initial engagement
of the petitioner and thus the petitioner could not claim parity with those
workers also.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has also not controverted that the
petitioner was never regularly employed and was not issued any
appointment letter and his services were never regularized. In the
circumstances, the only claim of the petitioner could be on the basis of 240
days continuous service and on which also finding of fact against the
petitioner has been returned by the Industrial Adjudicator. It has been
enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how a case for
interference with such finding of fact is made out. The counsel has not
been able to substantiate the same. I do not find any pleadings also in this
regard.
6. Though the petitioner has in the pleadings referred to certain
documents but the said documents have been dealt with by the Industrial
W.P.(C)3375/2011 Page 4 of 7
Adjudicator in the award and found to be suspicious and not believed as
evidence of 240 days of continuous service by the petitioner. This Court in
exercise of powers of judicial review would not re-appreciate the evidence.
Reference in this regard can be made to:
(i) Govt. of A.P. Vs. Mohd. Narsullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373.
(ii) Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch Vs. Maharaj Singh (2003) 9
SCC 191.
(iii) Union of India Vs. M/s Mustafa and Najibai Trading Co.
(1998) 6 SCC 79.
(iv) B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI (1996) I LLJ 1231 SC.
(v) Poorna Singh Kain Vs. UOI MANU/DE/1292/2008.
(vi) Suresh Kumar Vs. the Management of Monsanto Enterprise
Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/8303/2007.
(vii) Ram Narain Jha Vs. T.M. Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (99)
DRJ 724.
(viii) MCD Vs. Satish Kumar (2005) 81 DRJ 344 (DB)
W.P.(C)3375/2011 Page 5 of 7
It is settled position in law that a finding of fact even if erroneous
unless shown to be perverse or unreasonable would not be interfereable
while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Reference in this regard can be made to Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. The
Presiding Officer, Labour Court ILR (1976) 1 Del 565, DTC Vs. Delhi
Administration ILR (1973) 1 Del 838, Jawahar Singh Vs. Financial
Commissioner MANU/DE/8396/2007 & Kishan Chand Bhatia Vs. UOI
MANU/DE/0265/2005.
7. The judgments of the Apex Court in Workmen of English Electric
Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer 1990 (2) SCC 18 and State of
Haryana Vs. Devi Dutt 2006 (13) SCC 32 may also be noticed in this
regard; while in the former the Apex Court held that the finding of the
Industrial Adjudicator that the workmen had put in more than 240 days as
long as on the basis of some evidence could not be disturbed by the High
Court, in the latter the Supreme Court deprecated the High Court for
interfering with the finding of the Industrial Adjudicator of the workman
having not worked for 240 days.
W.P.(C)3375/2011 Page 6 of 7
8. In the present case, no case of perversity or unreasonableness is
made out. The reasoning given by the Industrial Adjudicator for not
believing the documents has not been controverted in any manner
whatsoever.
9. There is no merit in the writ petition; the same is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
CM No.7054/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 19, 2011
bs
W.P.(C)3375/2011 Page 7 of 7