SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 1039

S.B.SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU
Regional Manager, SBI – Appellant
Versus
Mahatma Mishra – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment holds that if a casual worker is appointed for a fixed period and termination is in terms of the contract, then Section 25-H may not apply. (!) - Reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic and depends on whether termination is illegal; regularisation or permanent status is not granted merely due to long service. (!) (!) (!) - Unfair labour practice is not to be readily inferred and requires satisfaction of conditions; mere long service or artificial breaks without evidence of purpose to deprive permanent status is insufficient. (!) (!) (!) - The discretionary power to grant relief under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously, and back wages may be limited or not awarded where not warranted. (!) (!) - The State is under constitutional duty to uphold equality; issues arising from unequal or improper appointment practices are to be considered in light of that duty. (!)

How to determine whether Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to a casual employee appointed for a fixed period?

What is the court’s view on reinstatement with back wages when termination is not proven illegal and permanent status is not conferred?

What are the conditions under which unfair labour practices can be inferred in cases of casual, temporary, or ad-hoc appointments?


JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.

2. Respondent was appointed on a temporary basis in the year 1982 for a period of 88 days. His services were terminated. An industrial dispute was raised by him which was referred to for adjudication before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court, Kanpur by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Region III, the Mall Kanpur, in relation to their Jhanstongang Branch, Allahabad in terminating the services of Shri Mahatma Mishra, Ex-messenger with effect from 4.9.1982 and not considering him for further employment as provided under section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, is justified. If not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"

3. Before the Industrial Court, the respondent inter alia relied upon a purported circular issued by the Personnel Department of the Appellant–Bank wherein direction was issued that temporary appointments were to be made for a maximum period of 90 days in the case of sub staff and 180 days in case of temporary staff upon obtaining suitable number of names from the concerned employment exchange(







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top