W.P.(C) 2292/2015 Page 1 of 15

$~52

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON –29^th AUGUST 2022

%

PRONOUNCED ON -21^st SEPTEMBER, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 2292/2015

NARENDER BAHADUR SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Aayushi Jain, Advocate.

versus

MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION BANK & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajat Arora with Mr. Niraj

Kumar, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J :

Background Facts

1.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned

Award dated 05.05.2014 passed in ID No.02/2014 titled Sh. Narender

Bahadur Singh Vs Corporation Bank, whereby, the learned CGIT

cum Labour Court directed the respondent bank to pay compensation

in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages to the

petitioner/workman.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003784

W.P.(C) 2292/2015 Page 2 of 15

2.

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/workman had filed a

statement of claim against the respondent bank seeking the relief of

reinstatement. The petitioner/workmen had alleged that he was

employed by the respondent bank and was placed at Karol Bagh,

Delhi branch on the sanctioned post of a Car driver with effect from

01.11.1999. The service of the petitioner/workman was terminated on

13.07.2006 without assigning any reason or cause of action. It was

alleged that the respondent bank had neither issued a notice nor

complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The petitioner/workmen also sent a demand notice to the

respondent bank which remained un-responded. The contention of the

petitioner/workman is that the petitioner/workman along with the

other workman had raised a Charter of Demands for the regularisation

of their services and the respondent bank got irked by it and

terminated

their

services.

It

was

also

pleaded

that

the

petitioner/workman has remained unemployed since the date of his

termination and that he did not get any job despite his best efforts.

3.

The

respondent

bank

while

contesting

the

claim

of

the

petitioner/workman denied the relationship of master and servant

between the parties. The contention of the respondent bank is that

personal car drivers are engaged by the executives of the bank in their

personal capacity. There is no cadre of a 'personal car driver' in the

respondent bank and as per the policy, whenever the eligible officers

engage personal drivers, reimbursement is provided to these officers

under the head 'allowances' on the basis of the scale set down by

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003784

W.P.(C) 2292/2015 Page 3 of 15

respondent bank. It is also contended that the respondent bank is a

Nationalised Bank and its appointment are public appointments based

on rules and regulations framed by the bank based on Directives of

the Central Government. Thus, the service of the petitioner/workman

was never under the supervision and direct control of the respondent

bank and he cannot be termed as a ‘workman’ within the meaning of

section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4.

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned CGIT framed

the following issues:-

2. Relief “

5.

The petitioner/workman in support of his case tendered his affidavit

as WW1 and respondent bank produced one Sh. Anjani Kumar,

Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank as MW1. Learned CGIT

decided the reference in favour of the petitioner/workman and against

the respondent bank. Learned CGIT in th