K. ANANDAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUKITTAN, PUTHENKANDATHIL, THAMALLAKKAL, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT Vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, SBT AVENUE, KOCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tea supplier claimed to be an employee of a bank on the ground that he was engaged by the members of staff to supply tea during the office hours, requested the management to regularise his service in the bank. Then the dispute between the bank and this particular person was referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal after due deliberation found that he was an employee of the 1st respondent bank, and that his services were illegally terminated. Then the 1st respondent moved W.P(C)No.12534 of 2004 before this Court to quash the Award of the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petition was allowed upholding the contention of the bank. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 21.5.2014 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12534 of 2004 whereby Ext.P1 award of the learned Industrial Tribunal has been quashed.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy between the parties, necessary facts are narrated in brief : The appellant claims that he was working as a peon/sweeper in Haripad branch of the 1st respondent/State Bank of Travancore, Zonal Office, Kochi from February 1983 to December 1992 with a break for few days. From January 1993 he was employed in the said Branch continuously till his termination on 28.11.1998. Though he made requests to the 1st respondent/management to regularise his service, the bank did not respond. Thereafter the management notified 151 vacancies of peons and made advertisments in newspapers inviting applications from candidates. Then he filed application in the month of October, 1992 for his regularisation in the post, but he was terminated with effect from 28.11.1998. That his retrenchment is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the I.D.Act'), is his grievance and hence he is challenging the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 12534 of 2004.

(3.) The 1st respondent has disputed the claim of the appellant and contended that the appellant was never appointed in the bank either as a peon or as sweeper, temporary or casual, as alleged/claimed by him and so the question of termination from service does not arise. In fact he had been engaged by the employees of the bank to prepare tea and that was by the Staff Welfare Committee and the 1st respondent bank has nothing to do with his engagement by the Staff Welfare Committee.