The main legal point established in the judgment is that continuous service as a messenger for a significant period and unfair termination without notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice amount to unfair labor practice and warrant reinstatement with full back wages.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present Writ Petition emanates from the judgment dated 19.07.2007 ("Impugned Award"), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court-II, New Delhi in I.D. No. 80/2001 titled as Shri Mohan Singh Bedi v. The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India. Vide the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court allowed the petition filed by the Respondent/Workman and held that the Respondent/Workman was a Messenger throughout his 10 years of service at the DPS extension counter of the Bank and not a contractual employee. Learned Labour Court further held that the Respondent/Workman had performed 240 days of service at least in the years 1991-1999 and directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent/Workman with 100% backwages. The Petitioner vide the present petition is inter alia praying to set aside the Impugned Award.

FACTS GERMANE TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. At the outset, it is the case of the Respondent/Workman that he was appointed as a full-time Messenger at the Petitioner/Bank at Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar Branch, to augment the strength of the subordinate staff with effect from 16.06.1990 at a fixed salary of Rs.2,000 p.m. It is further the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner/Bank withdrew the permanent Messenger posted at D.P.S. Extension Counter of the Bank and posted the Respondent/Workman to carry out indoor & outdoor duties of the Bank as a Messenger.

3. Further, the Respondent/Workman claims that he attended duties in the Petitioner/Bank from 8.45 AM - 5 PM and the work of the Respondent/Workman inter-alia entailed the following:

a) Working as Cash Messenger - Stitching notes etc.

b) Stamping of cheque books.

c) Attending the officials & clerical staff of the Bank as Messenger.

d) Carrying cash from the Extension Counter to the branch and branch to the Extension counter.

e) Distribution of Dak.

f) Stitching vouchers and stamping vouchers.

g) Adjusting ledger sheets in ledger.

h) Stitching cash, and

i) Doing all other messengerial duties which were being assigned from time to time.

4. He also claims that besides messengerial duties, he was also asked to perform clerical duties, in case of emergency.

5. It is further the claim of the Respondent/Workman that in terms of the Agreements dated 27.10.1988 and 09.01.1991 entered between the Petitioner/Bank and the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation, all temporary, casual and daily wager employees who worked in the Bank for more than 30 days in the calendar year between 01.07.1975 to 14.08.1991, were required to be empaneled and finally absorbed permanently in the Bank service. However, the claim of the Respondent/Workman who had the longest service was not considered.

6. Subsequently, on 29.11.1999, the Respondent/Workman submitted a representation to the Dy. General Manager of the Petitioner/Bank. However, it is the claim of the Respondent/Workman that the Petitioner/Bank despite reminders did not reply to the same.

7. Further, it is also case of the Respondent/Workman that the Petitioner/Bank turned hostile towards him and stopped his payment of wages and thereupon the Respondent/Workman submitted various representations including letters dated 26.02.2000 and further on 29.05.2000, as the Petitioner failed to pay the wages of the Respondent/Workman for the month of March and April, 2000.

8. On 01.06.2000, the services of the Respondent/Workman were terminated by the Petitioner/Bank, without assigning any speaking order or notice. The Respondent/Workman also claims that at the time of termination of his services, he was paid wages by the Petitioner/Bank @ Rs. 3,587 p.m.

9. Further, an Industrial dispute was raised by the Respondent/Workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi vide its letter dated 12.07.2000 which was treated as part of its statement of claim. Conciliation proceedings took place between the Petitioner/ Bank and the Respondent/Workman. However, proceedings befo