STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MAN PHOOL

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, Mahatrna Gandhi Marg, Kanpur, is directed against the judgment/order dated 8.4.1994 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33050 of 1990. (Since reported in 1994 (3) AWC 1340), in which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition with certain directions. The operative portion of the judgment/order reads :

(2.) THE factual backdrop 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 disengaged 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 1/2 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 11.1.1990 (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.) SRI Ganga Prasad appearing for the petitioner-respondent tried to justify the judgment/order of the learned single Judge.