Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, T.NARSINGA RAO
Y.NARENDER - Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BANK STREET, HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 02-23-78
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 25-F - INTERPRETATION - CONTINUOUS SERVICE FOR NOT LESS THAN ONE YEAR - MEANING AND SCOPE - RETRENCHMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH SECTION 25-F - VALIDITY - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - ISSUANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were either members of the clerical or subordinate staff of the Central Bank of India, were appointed for varying periods from time to time and on the expiry of one such period of service, they were not reappointed. Of these petitioners, some were members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, while others were non-scheduled castes and non-scheduled tribes. The petitioners claimed that they had worked for more than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination of their service and were therefore entitled to one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of such notice and also retrenchment compensation as envisaged by Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate them in service with full back wages and all attendant benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Central Bank of India was a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and was therefore amenable to a writ of mandamus under Article 226. The court further held that the petitioners were in "continuous service" for a period of one year within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even though their service was interrupted by periodical terminations and re-appointments, as they had worked for more than 240 days within 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination. The court also held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F, as the respondent had not complied with the requirements of the section before terminating their services.
Issues: 1. Whether the Central Bank of India was a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and was therefore amenable to a writ of mandamus under Article 226? 2. Whether the petitioners were in "continuous service" for a period of one year within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Central Bank of India was a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India because it was constituted under a statute and its powers and functions were conferred on it by law. The court also held that the Bank was not a "private body" merely because it carried on banking business and was liable to pay income tax. 2. The court held that the petitioners were in "continuous service" for a period of one year within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even though their service was interrupted by periodical terminations and re-appointments, as they had worked for more than 240 days within 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination. The court relied on the definition of "continuous service" in Section 25-B of the Act, which includes service that is interrupted by sickness, authorized leave, accident, strike, lockout, or cessation of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the respondent had not complied with the requirements of the section before terminating their services. The court held that the respondent was required to give the petitioners one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of such notice and also pay them retrenchment compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioners in service with full back wages and all attendant benefits. The court also directed the respondent to pay the petitioners retrenchment compensation as envisaged by Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
( 1 ) THESE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a common question of law as to the interpretation of the expression "continuous service for not less than one year" occurring in S. 25 (F) of the industrial Disputes Act in the context of the termination of the petitioners services without complying the requirements of S. 25 (F) of the Act.
( 2 ) THE petitioners who are either members of the clerical or subordinate staff of the Central Bank of India, the respondent herein, were appointed for varying periods from time to time and on the expiry of one such period of service, they were not reappointed. Of these petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2547, 2551, 2556/76 are clerks belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2548, 2549 ,2550, 2552, 2559, 2561, 2s63, 2564, 2636, 2638 and 3122 of 1976 also are all members of the clerical staff bat belong to the non-schduled castes and non-scheduled tribes. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2554, 2557, 2558, 2560, and 2562 and 2633/76 are members of the subordinate staff.
( 3 ) AS the question of law that is raised is common to all the writ petitions, suffice to mention the facts set out in W. P. Nos. 2547/76. The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk on. a temporary basis on 27-11 -1974 and be worked for a period of one month and three days. On the expiry of the said period of appointment he was reappointed for varying periods but with some interruptions. He was last appointed on 1-6-1976 and he worked till 26-6-1976. On the expiry of the said period he was not reappointed. The petitioner claims that he has actually worked for a period of more than 240 days during a period of 12 calender months preceding the date of the termination of his service and was therefore entitled to one month s notice or one month s wages in lieu of such notice and also retrenchment compensation as envisaged by S. 5 (F) of the Act. He contends that in as much as the requirements of the section have not been complied with, the termination of his services is illegal and ineffective. He, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate him in service with full back wages and all attendant benefits.
( 4 ) THE particulars of the petitioners period of service though not averred in the writ petitions, are fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the records as being borne out by the records of the Respondent-Bank. We, therefore proceed to consider the contentions of the parties on that footing. It may be noticed even at this stage, that all the petitioners in these writ petitions, except the petitioners in W. P. No. 2551, 2554 and 2636/76 have put in not less than 240 days of actual work in the 12 calender months immediately preceding the date of termination, only they were not in service for a continuous period of 12 months, there were interruptions.
( 5 ) BEFORE considering the petitioners contention that the termination of their services is illegal and without jurisdiction as it is in contravention of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, we must refer to and dispose off the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that these writ petitions are not maintainable, firstly for the reason that the central Bank of India is not a "state" or "any other Authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and secondly because of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, the High Court is precluded under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution from issuing any writ.
( 6 ) ARTICLE 12 of the Constitution of India declares that "the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the legislature of each of the States and all local or other Authorities within the territory of India which are under the control of the Government of India. The quest
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
