Case Name: Binoy Kumar Sinha v. The State Bank of India and 4 Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/1331/2014
Date of Judgment: 26.04.2024
Quorum of the Case: The case was presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Binoy Kumar Sinha, the petitioner, served as a sweeper in the Dinjan Branch of the State Bank of India (SBI) and challenged the termination of his service dated 16.09.2008. The termination was upheld by the Industrial Tribunal through an award dated 30.09.2013, which answered against the petitioner, stating he was a daily wage worker and not a workman. The petitioner claims to have been verbally appointed as a sweeper on 29.03.2004 and received Rs. 50/- per day, later increased to Rs. 60/- per day. He was also paid Rs. 30/- per day for cleaning the ATM, along with allowances for other tasks. The petitioner argues that his termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was a daily wage worker and should be considered a workman. The reference brought to the Labour Court questioned the legality and justification of the petitioner’s termination and sought relief for him. The Industrial Tribunal’s award was based on the petitioner’s failure to prove continuous employment for 240 days preceding his termination and his status as a daily wage worker rather than a workman. The petitioner’s counsel cites precedents where daily wage workers were regularised, emphasising the petitioner’s four years of service and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. The respondent’s counsel argues against regularisation, citing absence of a scheme for it and the need for compliance with constitutional recruitment procedures. The judgement cites various Supreme Court cases related to the regularisation of temporary workers and emphasises compliance with constitutional provisions regarding appointments. Ultimately, the court dismisses the writ petition, affirming the Industrial Tribunal’s decision and finding no grounds to interfere with it.
ISSUES
- whether Binoy Kumar Sinha’s termination from his role as a sweeper at the State Bank of India’s Dinjan Branch on 16.09.2008 was legally justified.
- whether Sinha should be classified as a workman or a daily wage worker, as this classification affects his entitlements and protections under relevant labour laws.
- whether the termination adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in labour legislation, particularly regarding notice and compensation in accordance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: This section lays down the conditions that must be met for the retrenchment of workmen. It mandates, among other things, the provision of notice or payment in lieu of notice and the payment of retrenchment compensation to eligible employees.
- Constitutional Provisions: The case refers to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, and Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These provisions are cited to emphasise the importance of adherence to fair and transparent recruitment processes.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant was orally appointed as a Sweeper on March 29, 2004, and delineates the compensation and duties during his tenure at the State Bank of India’s Dinjan Branch. The progression of his salary, from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 60/- per day, and the additional allowances for specific tasks like ATM and premises cleaning, are highlighted. The appellant’s counsel contends that the appellant’s termination as a daily wager worker breaches Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This assertion rests on the argument that the appellant’s status qualifies him as a workman, thereby entitling him to certain legal protections. The appellant’s counsel underscores that the reference presented to the Central Government Tribunal seeks clarification on the legality and justification of the appellant’s termination. By framing the reference in this manner, the appellant’s counsel aims to underscore the importance of resolving the issue through legal channels. These contentions provide a structured argument, asserting the appellant’s position regarding the termination and its legal ramifications. They are designed to persuade the court to rule favourably on behalf of the appellant.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent’s counsel argues that the appellant was never formally appointed as a workman against any permanent vacancy, nor was there any advertisement or selection process conducted. Instead, the appellant was engaged sporadically as a daily wage worker for various manual tasks at the bank. The respondent’s counsel contends that there is no scheme in place for the regularisation of the appellant’s employment. As a daily wage worker, there is no basis for regularising his service or extending it beyond the period required by the bank. The respondent’s counsel references legal precedents and emphasises that the appellant’s case lacks the prerequisites for regularisation or continuation of service. The absence of formal appointment procedures and the sporadic nature of the appellant’s engagement are highlighted as key factors in this argument. These contentions collectively constitute the respondent’s position regarding the appellant’s termination and the legal implications thereof. They aim to justify the bank’s actions and refute the appellant’s claims of wrongful termination and entitlement to certain benefits.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court’s analysis begins by referencing relevant judgments and legal principles. It notes that the appellant failed to prove continuous employment for 240 days preceding his termination, a requirement under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Furthermore, it observes that the appellant’s engagement lacked procedural regularity, as there was no formal appointment process or advertisement conducted by the bank. Building upon its analysis, the court concludes that the appellant did not meet the criteria for regularisation or continuation of service. It emphasises the absence of procedural regularity in the appellant’s engagement and the failure to demonstrate continuous employment for the requisite period. As such, the court finds no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Based on its analysis and findings, the court dismisses the appellant’s writ petition. It concludes that there are no grounds to interfere with the Industrial Tribunal’s award, which upheld the termination of the appellant’s service. The court directs that the records be sent back accordingly, thereby bringing the case to a close. This judgement summarises the court’s assessment of the appellant’s claims, the legal principles involved, and the ultimate decision reached by the court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
