LexH.D. SINGH versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 842 H.D. SINGH v. RESERVE BANK OF llIDIA & ORS, SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 (0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act 1947, sections 2 (oo), 25 F, Schedule V, Item 10, Reserve Bank of India - Employment of Tikka Mazdoor - Persons helping examiner of coins and notes - Daily rated workers - Name of worker struck off the rolls after passing matriculation examination - Whether amounts to 'retrenchment' - Confidential circular of Bank instructing officers to give work on rotational basis - Whether an 'unfair labour practice'. The appellant wail a tikka mazdoor-person who helps the Examiners of Coins and notes in the Reserve Banlt of India, the 1st Respondent. Be was selected in 1974 on daily wages basis and be bad to report to the bank regularly in the morning to ascer- tain whether he could get work every-day. On daya when no work was given be had to wait till noon to be told by the authorities concerned that no work was available. Thus, he bad work only for four days in 1974, and one hundred and fifty four days in 1975, · and one hundred and five days in 1976. At the time he was selec- ted for employment, he was not a matriculate; Be passed the matriculate examination in 1975. His name was struck off the list of Tikka Mazdoors ali the confidential circular issued by the bank indicated that persona who passed the matriculation examination could not be retained in the list. As the appellant was not given any work after July 1976 and as there were no written order terminating bia service and as att1111pta to get bia grievances redressed by correspondence having failed he 111>ved for conciliation. The Assistant J..abour Colllniss- ioner though impressed with the genuineness of the claim of the appellant, could not persuade the bank. Thereupon, the Central Govermoent referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The appellant in bis claia statelll!llt before the Tribwlal, pleaded that he had presented himself for duty daily but vu not H.D.SINGll V• R.B.I. 843 offered .1obs on the days when he reported for duty for reasons best known to the bank, that he was employed for 4 days in 1974, 154 days in 1975 and 105 days in 1976, that he was not told at the time when he accepted the job that his name would be struck off from the rolls if he passed the matriculate examination and that he had worked continuously for 240 days if the Sundays and Holidays were taken into. account, and that the action of the bank in striking out his name from the list am:iunted to retrenchment. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the Bank contending that the reference was bad since the dispute was not sponsored by any representative trade union, that Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was not attracted, and also that the dispute in question was not an industrial dispute, that the appellant failed to inform the bank that he had passed the matri- culation examination after getting selected and that he had not worked for 240 days in any year. The Tribunal held that the action of the Reserve Bank, in not giving regular appointment to the appellant was legal and proper and that his name could be struck off from the list of approved Tikka Mazdoors in terms of a proper and justifiable policy followed by the management of the Bank; Allowing the appeal, BILD: 1. Striking off the name of the appellant is clearly termination of his service and the dispute squarely comes within Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal grossly erred in upholding the preliminary objection raised by the Bank. [852 CJ 2. Striking off the name of a workman from the rolls by the employer am:iunts to 'termination of service' and such termination is 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Sec. 2(oo) of the Indus- trilil Disputes Act, 1947 if effected in violation of the manda- tory provision contained in Sec. 25-F and in invalid. [850 F, 853 F-G] Delhi Cloth & General HU.ls Ltd. v. Slumblm Jllath Kukberjee & 0ra. [1978] 1 s.c.a. 591., State Bank ot India ..,. Sbr1 111. Sundara Money, [1976] 3 s.c.a. 160., referred to. In the instant csse, the pleadings, documents and the confidential circular indicate that the Bank was determined to adopt methods to terminate the services .of employees like the A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP:2 s.c.R. appellant. 'D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.