The court upheld that an employee's continuous service of over 240 days entitles him to protections under the Industrial Disputes Act, and any termination without adherence to statutory requirements is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, assailing the Award dated 09.06.2014 (hereinafter ‘Impugned Award’) passed by Ld. Central Government Industrial Tribunal II, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘CGIT’) answering the reference in negative terms holding the termination of the Respondent/Workman to be void and that the Respondent/Workman is entitled for reinstatement with regularization of his services as Orderly/ Daftari.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The Petitioner is a Nationalized Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 having its branches all over India including its branch at Mussoorie in Dehradun District, Uttarakhand.

3. The Respondent/Workman was employed with the Petitioner/bank since 1988 in the capacity of a temporary employee (Peon) at its Zonal Office in Dehradun vide appointment letter dated 19th September 1988. The initial appointment was for a period of 30 days w.e.f. 21^st September 1988, the terms and conditions of appointment stipulated that the engagement was temporary in nature.

4. In the year 1992, the Petitioner/Bank terminated the services of the Respondent/Workman without any notice, in pursuance to which the Respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute. Consequently, vide Order dated 22.08.1997, the Central Government declined to make a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter‘ the Act ’), holding that the Respondent had worked only intermittently, namely: 87 days in 1988, 111 days in 1989, 26 days in 1990, 20 days in 1991, and 20 days in 1992. Therefore, it was held that the Respondent had not completed 240 days of continuous service in any twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination of his services.

5. In the interregnum, the Respondent/workman was reappointed by the bank on 16.12.1996 and was engaged as a temporary employee against a vacant post on the panel of subordinate staff, on the post of Orderly(Temporary), at the Punjab and Sind Bank, Mussoorie Branch, Dehradun.

6. During his tenure of serving as temporary orderly, the Workman raised a demand before the management seeking regularization of his services which were not regularized; instead, another individual was appointed by the management on compassionate grounds. Workman thereafter, filed Petition No. 205 of 2003 (SS) before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital seeking regularization of his services; however, the same was dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the competent forum.

7. Thereafter, the Respondent/Workman continued to discharge his duties as a temporary employee on the bona fide belief and legitimate expectation that his services would be regularized, as he had been assured by the Petitioner/Bank that necessary communications in that regard had already been forwarded to the competent higher authorities. However, on 11.05.2003, the services of the R