LexBANK OF INDIA AND ANR . versus TARUN KR. BISWAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J . .r BANK OF INDIA AND ANR . A v. T ARUN KR. BIS WAN AND ORS. JULY 3C, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] B ~ Labour laws: Regularisation-Claim of, by Bud/ee workers engaged on temporary basis-Scheme for their absorption against permanent vacancies subject to completion of 240 Bud/ee working days of service in a block year c of 12 months-Single Judge of High Court relaxing the norm of 240 days if - shortfall marginal-Division Bench holding that employer to proceed on the basis that each of the worker completed 240 days-On appeal, held: Employee is to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days-High Court erred in holding that each of them had worked for more than 240 days without factual aspect having been established by workers-Also employees accepted D ~~ that they did not complete 240 days of work-Entitlement being under the Scheme, order of High Court is unsustainable and thus, set aside. Appellant-bank prepared a panel for appointment of Budlee Sepoys on • temporary basis against leave vacancies and absorb them when regular vacancies arose. The scheme for absorption was formulated which was subject E to completion of 240 Budlee working days of service in a block year of 12 months or a calendar year. On absorption the Budlee Sepoys would continue on approved panels and would be deployed on leave vacancy on need basis and would be absorbed in permanent vacanci~ arising in future. > "'"" Respondents-Budlee workers were engaged on temporary basis as F subordinate staff. They were asked by the Bank to exercise their option for the engagement in non-CCA in West Bengal but were not given employment. Thereafter, respondents filed writ petition seeking regularization of service as subordinate staff in the Bank on the ground that they had served for more than 240 days in a block of 12 months. Appellant submitted that the writ G .'• petitioners were being used as Budlee workers and could not be absorbed having not completed 240 days in a block year. Single Judge of High Court --- ~-- held that. the majority of the writ petitioners 'Worked for more than 240 days in th~ y~~r nr a b\nck nf 12 calendar months and directed that the norm of 625 H A B c D E F G H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R. 240 days be relaxed if the shortfall was marginal. Appellant-Bank challenged the order on the ground that the Single Judge could not have directed absorption of bud lee worker who had not completed 240 days in a particular year. It contended that for purpose of calculating 240 days, Sunday and public holidays were excluded. Division Bench of High Court though observed that the Single Judge was not justified in directing that those who had worked for 210 days could be considered for absorption, but held that the appellants ought to proceed on the basis that each of the writ petitioners had completed 240 days in the block of 12 calendar months, and that there was no logic in excluding the Sundays and public holidays while making the calculations. Hence the present appeals. Appellant-Bank contended that the letter of engagement stipulated that the employment was only for a specific period of time and on its expiry their services would be teiminated; that the respondents in the representation before Assistant Labour Commissioner accepted that the appellant did not allow them to work for 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months; that in the writ petition also respondents clearly admitted that they did not complete the required 240 days of service in a calendar year under the scheme for their deployment/ absorption against permanent vacancies; that the Bank had asked the writ petitioners to exercise their option for engaging in non-CCA areas in West Bengal but the respondents failed to exercise their option and never expressed their willingness for the same; that the said exercise of option did not mean any commitment or assurance for appointment by the Bank; that the Bank had surplus staff even after implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000; that there was no permanent vacancy of sub-staff in the Bank; and that no weekly off was given to Budlee worker if he worked only for 6 days, it was only when the engagement of budlee Sepoy was more than 6 days at a stretch then weekly off was given after 6 days of work. Respondents~employee contended that the High Court had given finding of fact that the writ petition
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.