Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Central Bank of India, through its Assistant Regional Manager, Purnea Regision namely Mrs. E.B. Nandi, Wife of Mr. Shyamal Nandi – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Mandal, S/o. Late, Ram Mandal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recognition of workman's long-term service (Para 2 , 8 , 11) |
| 2. arguments against employer-employee relationship (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. workman's claims for regularization based on parity (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. limited jurisdiction in certiorari applications (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. discrimination and equality under article 14 (Para 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 6. dismissal of application based on valid award (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the Award dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 24 of 2014; whereby the Ld. Tribunal held that the action of the Management in not regularizing the services of the respondent–workman is unjustified and had directed the Bank to regularize the workman against a regular vacant post of Driver/Peon within 30 days from publication of the Award.
3. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner-Bank that the workman was never appointed by the Bank, either orally or in writing, and was merely a personal driver of Bank exe
Differential treatment of similarly situated employees violates equality under Article 14; non-regularization of a long-serving workman in contrast to others amounts to unjust discrimination.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, mandating permanent status and equal pay for work of similar nature.
The court established that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic for ad-hoc workers and that compensation may suffice if formal appointment procedures are not followed.
Regularization of service under labor laws requires formal adherence to established processes; mere employment duration without appropriate applications does not confer entitlement.
Point of Law : Industrial Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to pass an award in the present matter, still, this Court exercising its power under writ jurisdiction would not set aside the award.
Temporary or part-time employees cannot claim regularization merely based on length of service without sanctioned posts, and must seek remedies through the designated Industrial Tribunal.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment of daily wagers without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, necessitating their regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court upheld the Tribunal's awards for employee regularization, emphasizing the prohibition of unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, while clarifying the need for state approv....
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
