The court held that the burden of proof for establishing continuous service lies with the workman, and failure to demonstrate working for 240 days results in the dismissal of claims under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by award dated 20.01.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case No. CIT 19/1995, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It has been submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner is a Nationalized Bank having Branches in the entire country and its regular staff is employed by following during procedure contemplated in the Rules prevailing in petitioner-Bank.

3. However, in order to clear the over burden of work, as per contingencies, casual and purely temporary arrangements are made by the Branch Manager of respective Branches by engaging daily wagers, who are never considered to be regular employee of the petitioner-Bank.

4. It has been stated by the petitioner that respondent- workman was earlier engaged by the Power House Branch of petitioner-Bank from 03.07.1991 to 17.09.1991 for a period of 62 days. Thereafter, after a considerably long period, he was engaged by the Branch Manager of M.I. Road Branch of petitioner-Bank from 07.04.1992 to 13.06.1992 for a period of 65 days. Thereafter, services of the respondent-workman were discontinued from M.I. Road Branch and again after a long intervals, he was engaged by Nehru Palace Branch of petitioner-Bank from 17.08.1992 to 30.11.1992 for a period of 80 days. The respondent-workman was not continued in the aforesaid Branch thereafter. After a lapse of around three and half months, respondent-workman was engaged in Tripolia Bazar Branch of petitioner-Bank from 04.03.1993 to 28.05.1993 for a period of 53 days.

5. As per the petitioner, respondent-workman has thus, worked on purely casual and daily wages basis for total period of 260 days in a period of around 2 years and that too, in four different Branches. His work was also not regular in nature and he had worked in such different Branches in different intervals.

6. It has been averred by the petitioner that from the date of termination i.e. 29.05.1993, the petitioner has never worked for 240 or more days in preceding calendar year, therefore, his services do not fall within the ambit of continuous services.

7. However, feeling aggrieved by termination dated 29.05.1993, the respondent-workman raised Industrial Disputes under the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), which was ultimately referred to learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, where terms of reference were as to whether the action of management of Bank of Baroda is justified in terminating the services of Shri Vijay Kumar Bhatnagar, casual staff w.e.f. 29.05.1993 or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

8. It has been submitted by the petitioner that although the respondent-workman had failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in last preceding year and ignoring the fact that working in different units/Branches could not have been clubbed, learned Tribunal has erroneously held the termination to be in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 and directed for reinstatement of the workman by maintaining continuity in service along with half of the back wages vide award dated 20.01.2000. Hence, petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petition.

9. Counsel for the respondent-workman, on the contrary supported the impugned award dated 20.01.2000 by stating that in case Sundays and other permissible holidays are added in actual working days, then it would come out that the respondent- workman has worked for more than 240 days in last preceding calendar year from the date of his termination. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-workman that the petitioner-Bank cannot be absolved from its liability by stating that different Branches of the bank are totally independent Units and working of the respondent-workman in such different Branches cannot be clubbed. As per the counsel for the respondent, all the Branches are working under the