The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving continuous work for workman status and the necessity of following proper procedures in termination, as per Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner, while Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appears for the State Bank of India.

2. The petitioner who served as a Sweeper in Dinjan Branch of the SBI challenges the Award dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, whereby the termination of the petitioner’s service as a daily wager w.e.f. 16.09.2008 was upheld and the reference was answered against the disengaged workman.

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed verbally as a Sweeper on 29.03.2004 and worked in the SBI Dinjan Branch. The petitioner was given Rs. 50/- per day as a Sweeper, which was enhanced to Rs. 60/- per day. He was also paid Rs. 30/- per day since January, 2008 for cleaning the ATM. Later he was also given allowance when asked to clean the bank premises, i.e. cutting grass etc. The petitioner was also sometimes asked to work as a messenger for the bank, for which he was given TA/DA.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s service as a daily wager worker amounted to the petitioner being a workman and as he had been terminated from service on 16.09.2008, without any prior notice, the same had to be set aside in view of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that being aggrieved with the termination of his service, the reference brought to the notice of the Central Government Tribunal, Labour Court, Guwahati was as follows:

“Whether the action for the management of State Bank of India, Djnjan Branch in terminating the service of Sri Binoy Kumar Sinha w.e.f. September, 2008 was legal and justified? If no, what relief the workman was entitled?”

6. The Award dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 7/2010 was answered against the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner was a daily wage worker and not a workman. Further, the petitioner had not been able to prove that he worked under the SBI, Dinjan Branch regularly, as he was paid Rs. 60/- per day. Further, the petitioner had failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously in the 12 consecutive months preceding his termination from service.

7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned Award has to be set aside, as a daily wage earner is also a workman. Further he worked in the SBI for 4 years. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another, (2014) 7 SCC 190 (paragraph 2, 5, 34, 43). The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs. Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 (paragraph 20 & 21) and in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Man Singh, (2006) 7 SCC 752.

8. The learned counsel for the SBI submits that no appointment order was given to the petitioner as a workman against any permanent vacancy. No advertisement was made and neither was any selection process resorted to, on the basis of which the petitioner was sometimes given manual work by the SBI, as a daily wage worker. The petitioner was on separate occasions asked to do some sweeping work etc and was paid for his work, which was not continuous.

9. Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Man Singh, (2006) 7 SCC 752, the respondents therein had been appointed on temporary basis, while the workmen in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota vs. Mohan Lal reported in (2013) 14 SCC 543, was engaged on muster roll basis.

10. In the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another, (2014) 7 SCC 190, the appellants