STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MANPHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, filed by the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Railway Road, Farrukhabad, through its Branch Manager and the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region-II, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Kanpur, is directed against the judgment/order dated April 8, 1994 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33050 of 1990 in which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition with certain directions. The operative portion of the judgment/order reads :-

(2.) The factual back drop of the case necessary for decision of the controversy may be stated thus : The petitioner-respondent Man Phool, who is a Law Graduate, was engaged as a Water Boy and was serving in the State Bank of India, Farrukhabad Branch on a daily wage of Rs. 6/-. He discharged his duties in the Bank on the working days and served at residence of the Manager of the Bank on holidays. He was dis-engaged after putting in service for certain period about which there is considerable difference between the parties. While according to the respondent he had put in 113 days of service including holidays but was not paid wages for 96/2 days, according to the appellants he had served only for 83 days. According to a circular issued by the Bank a daily wage employee who has served for more than 90 days and does not possess educational qualification in excess of that prescribed for the post, is entitled to be considered for regularisation in the post. For the post of Water Boy the educational qualification prescribed is Class VIII. Since he was not considered for regularisation in service, the respondent filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9822 of 1988 in this Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Court on January 11, 1990 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy and he can make an application to the Central Government for making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relevant portion of the order reads:

(3.) In pursuance of the said order the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which culminated in the order of the Central Government dated November 16, 1990 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) refusing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication holding, inter alia, that the petitioner had only put in 83 days of service and, therefore, was rightly not considered for regularisation of service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition not only assailing the order of the Central Government refusing to make a reference to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, but also seeking a writ of mandamus directing regularisation of his service according to the Circular of the Bank which was sought in the previous writ petition.