Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
R M Bank Of Baroda Jaipur vs P O C I T Jaipur on 2 May, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:17815]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3162/2000
The Regional Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Anand Bhawan, S.C.
Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Shri Vijay Kumar Bhatnagar S/o Shri Badrinarayan
Bhatnagar, Chhaya Deep, 1st Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Shop
No.9, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupin K. Kala
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
RESERVED ON :: 22.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 02.05.2025
1. Feeling aggrieved by award dated 20.01.2000 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case No. CIT 19/1995, the petitioner
has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
2. It has been submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner
is a Nationalized Bank having Branches in the entire country and
its regular staff is employed by following during procedure
contemplated in the Rules prevailing in petitioner-Bank.
3. However, in order to clear the over burden of work, as per
contingencies, casual and purely temporary arrangements are
made by the Branch Manager of respective Branches by engaging
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17815] (2 of 8) [CW-3162/2000]
daily wagers, who are never considered to be regular employee of
the petitioner-Bank.
4. It has been stated by the petitioner that respondent-
workman was earlier engaged by the Power House Branch of
petitioner-Bank from 03.07.1991 to 17.09.1991 for a period of 62
days. Thereafter, after a considerably long period, he was engaged
by the Branch Manager of M.I. Road Branch of petitioner-Bank
from 07.04.1992 to 13.06.1992 for a period of 65 days.
Thereafter, services of the respondent-workman were discontinued
from M.I. Road Branch and again after a long intervals, he was
engaged by Nehru Palace Branch of petitioner-Bank from
17.08.1992 to 30.11.1992 for a period of 80 days. The
respondent-workman was not continued in the aforesaid Branch
thereafter. After a lapse of around three and half months,
respondent-workman was engaged in Tripolia Bazar Branch of
petitioner-Bank from 04.03.1993 to 28.05.1993 for a period of 53
days.
5. As per the petitioner, respondent-workman has thus, worked
on purely casual and daily wages basis for total period of 260 days
in a period of around 2 years and that too, in four different
Branches. His work was also not regular in nature and he had
worked in such different Branches in different intervals.
6. It has been averred by the petitioner that from the date of
termination i.e. 29.05.1993, the petitioner has never worked for
240 or more days in preceding calendar year, therefore, his
services do not fall within the ambit of continuous services.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17815] (3 of 8) [CW-3162/2000]
7. However, feeling aggrieved by termination dated 29.05.1993,
the respondent-workman raised Industrial Disputes under the
Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of
1947’), which was ultimately referred to learned Industrial
Tribunal, Jaipur, where terms of reference were as to whether the
action of management of Bank of Baroda is justified in terminating
the services of Shri Vijay Kumar Bhatnagar, casual staff w.e.f.
29.05.1993 or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
8. It has been submitted by the petitioner that although the
respondent-workman had failed to prove that he had worked for
more than 240 days in last preceding year and ignoring the fact
that working in different units/Branches could not have been
clubbed, learned Tribunal has erroneously held the termination to
be in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 and
directed for reinstatement of the workman by maintaining
continuity in service along with half of the back wages vide award
dated 20.01.2000. Hence, petitioner was constrained to file the
instant writ petition.
9. Counsel for the respondent-workman, on the contrary
supported the impugned award dated 20.01.2000 by stating that
in case Sundays and other permissible holidays are added in
actual working days, then it would come out that the respondent-
workman has worked for more than 240 days in last preceding
calendar year from the date of his termination. It has also been
submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-workman that
the petitioner-Bank cannot be absolved from its liability by stating
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17815] (4 of 8) [CW-3162/2000]
that different Branches of the bank are totally independent Units
and working of the respondent-workman in such different
Branches cannot be clubbed. As per the counsel for the
respondent, all the Branches are working under the same
management at National level, therefore, merely on account of the
fact that working of the petitioner was in different Branches, he
cannot be deprived of the protection granted to a workman under
the provisions of I.D. Act. He has also stated that even if, it is
assumed that the respondent-workman had not worked for more
than 240 days, even then the provisions of Section 25G and 25H
would apply and learned Tribunal has thus committed no mistake
in passing the impugned award.
10. In the instant writ petition, the impugned award was stayed
and thereafter application under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947
filed by the respondent-workman was allowed by this Court vide
order dated 09.05.2001. Since then, the respondent workman has
been getting last wages drawn pursuant to order dated
09.05.2001.
11. I have examined the record of the writ petition and have also
heard both the learned counsel for the parties.
12. Bare perusal of the statements of claim filed by respondent-
workman would make it clear that his working was not regular and
he has worked in different intervals in different Branches of
petitioner-Bank. Although, learned counsel for the respondent-
workman has attempted to counter submissions made by the
counsel for the petitioner by stating that in case, permissible
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17815] (5 of 8) [CW-3162/2000]
holidays and Sundays are taken into account; then his actual
working would be more than 240 days in last preceding calendar
year from the date of termination. Even if, such contention of
learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, even then it would
come out that even on clubbing the working of the respondent-
workman in different Branches of petitioner-Bank in last preceding
year from his date of termination, then also it is reflected that he
had worked actually for 178 days and there were 48 Sundays
during such working period and 12 permissible holidays were
claimed by learned counsel for the respondent-workman. Thus,
even if the contention of respondent is accepted, the total period
of adding the actual workings Sundays and other holidays would
come to 238 days, which is admittedly less than 240 days. Thus,
even on facts, the respondent-workman has utterly failed to make
out that he had rendered continuous service of 240 days or more
days in last preceding calendar year.
13. In order to strengthen his submission, counsel for the
petitioner-Bank has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of American
Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Management
of American Express International Banking Corporation
reported in AIR 1986 SC 458, and has submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that only those holidays and
Sundays should be taken into account for the purpose of
reckoning the total number of days, on which the workman could
be said to have actually worked, where the workman has been
paid or such Sundays and holidays. But in the instant case, the
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17815] (6 of 8) [CW-3162/2000]
respondent-workman has never received any payment for the
Sundays and other holidays in the preceding calendar year.
Therefore, the respondent-workman cannot claim that such
Sundays and Holidays should also be counted for taking into
consideration his total working days.
14. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance the judgment
delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of
Baroda, Kota Vs. Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-LC, Kota and
anr. reported in 2010(2) WLC(Raj.) 675. In the aforesaid
judgment the Division Bench of this Court has referred the
judgments in the cases of Haryana State Co-operative Supply
Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Sanjay reported in JT 2009(9)
SC 475, Union of India and Ors. Vs. Jummaasha Diwan
reported in 2006(8) SCC 544, DGM Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Illias Abdulrehman reported in
2005(2) SCC 183, Kusheshwar Mandal Vs. State of Rajasthan
and Ors. reported in 2004(3) CDR 1810 (Raj.) and Sarvajanik
Nirman Mazdoor Sangh Bhilwara and ors. Vs. Judge Labour
Court, Udaipur & Ors. reported in RLW 2005 (2) Raj. 1070.
15. After referring the aforesaid judgments, it has been observed
by the Division Bench that the engagement of the workman was
by the Branch Manager only therefore, it cannot be held that the
workman was engaged by any other authority other than Branch
manager of the respective Branches. It was further observed that
working under different Branches/Units and establishments is to
be taken only for the purpose of payment of Bonus Act, however,
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17815] (7 of 8) [CW-3162/2000]
for the purpose of ID of such branches are to be taken as different
Units. Therefore, considering the provision of Section 25B of the
Act it was observed that since the workmen have been working
under different Branches, their total working days cannot be taken
into consideration for determining continuous service.
16. In addition to above, it has also been submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that burden of proving the service of
more than 240 days in a calendar year is upon the workman,
however, in the instant case, the workman has utterly failed to
discharge his burden.
17. It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that
merely stating that there was violation of Section 25G and H of
the Act, is not sufficient on the part of the workman and he is
required to lead evidence that any workman, who was engaged
after him was retained but services of the respondent-workman
were terminated. He is also required to prove that even after his
termination, ignoring the claim of the respondent-workman, any
other workman was given preference and was engaged. However,
no such evidence was produced by the respondent-workman.
Hence, case of Section 25 G and H is also not made out in favour
of the respondent-workman. In order to support his contention,
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Union Bank Employees Association Vs.
Union Bank of India reported in RLW 2002(3)(Raj.) 1366.
18. In the light of the above discussion, it becomes abundantly
clear that learned Industrial Tribunal has committed serious
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17815] (8 of 8) [CW-3162/2000]
irregularity by not properly appreciating scope of provision of
Industrial Disputes Act and even in the facts where the
respondent-workman could not even prove his continuous working
for more than 240 days in a calendar year, provision of Section
25F have wrongly been applied. That apart, although there was
virtually no evidence to support the case of respondent-workman,
award has been passed in favour of the respondent-workman by
giving perverse findings.
19. Hence, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, this writ petition
succeeds and award dated 20.01.2000 passed by learned
Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case CIT No. 19/1995 is hereby
quashed.
20. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby allowed.
21. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
pcg/01
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:45:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)