RADHA RAMAN SAMANTA versus BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1172 · Decided: 19-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RADHA RAMAN SAMANTA 
v. 
BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226. 
Writ petition-Power of High Courts-Held: Power can be invoked 
c even for enforcement of a legal right. 
Writ petition-Scope and ambit of---Undisputed facts-Examination 
• 
of-Held: Is not debarred in a proceeding under Art. 226. 
Labour Law: 
D 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25C Explanation. 
Badli workman-Definition-Held: Is limited only to the purposes of 
S. 25C Expln. 
E 
The appellant was appointed as a Badli Subordinate Staff/sepoy 
against one permanent vacancy in one of the branches of the respond-
.. 
ent-Bank and worked there for about 492 days. Subsequently, the 
appellant was asked not to work anymore. 
F 
Being aggrieved the appellant filed a writ petition before the High 
Court for a direction to the respondent-Bank for absorbing him as a 
regular employee. Single Judge allowed the writ petition. However, 
Division Bench sent the writ petition back to the Single Judge to 
determine whether the appellant was a Badli worker or not. 
G 
The single Judge found that the appellant was a Badli worker who 
had rendered continuous service for 240 days in a calendar year and 
directed the respondent to absorb him. However, the Division Bench, 
in appeal, held that the appellant should have availed himself of the 
"" 
alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, 
' 
H therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal. 
1172 
R.R. SAMANT Av. BANK OF INDIA 
1173 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD : 1.1. On the earlier occasion when the matter was 
considered by the Division Bench, the respondent-Bank did not raise 
any issue of alternative remedy or any question relating to non-
maintainability of the writ petition. When such issues might and ought B 
to have been raised but bad not been done sc, it must be taken that 
the Division Bench had rejected such contentions and the order of the 
Division Bench remanding the matter to the single Judge was not 
carried in appeal and becaine final. Therefore, the single Judge was 
bound to address only on one issue upon which the matter had been 
remanded. Thus, the Division Bench could not have overlooked these C 
facts in the appeal arising from the order of the single Judge on the 
second occasion after remand and need not have gone into the question 
as to whether the writ petition could have been entertained at all or 
not. [1177-F-H; 1178-A) 
1.2. High Courts have often exercised their power under Article 
226 of the Constitution for enforcement of a legal right. It is, therefore, 
open to the single Judge to issue an appropriate direction to the 
respondent-Bank, if otherwise justifiable on facts. [1178-B-C) 
D 
Style (Dress Land) v. Union Territory Chandigarh, (1999) 7 sec 89, E 
relied on. 
2. It is not improper for the single Judge to look into undisputed 
documents and to infer as to the status of employment of the appellant. 
Examination of undisputed facts is not debarred in a proceeding under F 
Article 226 of the Constitution. [1178-E-F) 
KK Kochunni v. State of Madras, (1959) 2 Supp. SCR 316; Jkram 
Hussain, Mohd v. State of UP., [1954) 5 SCR 56 and Govt. of A.P. v. 
Karri Chinna Venkata Reddy, (1995] Supp. 1 SCC 462, relied on. 
3. The definition of Badli workman under the Explanation to 
Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to the 
purposes of that Section and is not necessarily applicable to the facts 
arising in the present case. [1179-C-D] 
G 
Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, [1981] 2 sec 238 H 
1174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A and Budge Budge Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workman, (1970) 1 LLJ 222, 
referred to. 
4. Nomenclature of the appellant's work profile may change, but 
it is clear that the appellant had rendered services in a vacancy of a 
B temporary post for more than 240 days. This is sufficient to treat the 
appellant as a Radii for the purpose of absorption. Hence, he has a legal 
right to be absorbed in the respondent-Bank. (1179-F-G] 
c 
Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, [2001] 3 
sec 574, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2063 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.99 of the Calcutta High 
D Court in M.A.T. No. 3014 of 1998. 
E 
S. Muralidhar for the Appellant. 
K. Venugopal, Ms. Nina Gupta, Uday Gupta, Ms. Arpita Mahajan and 
Ms. Pran

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.