APNA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED Vs. VAJU NANJI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dtd. 19/5/2017 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.101 of 2015. By the said order, the Industrial Court directed the petitioner to declare and confirm the respondent as a permanent part-time sweeper after completion of 240 days from his date of appointment on 7/1/2011. The Court further directed payment of all consequential benefits arising from such permanency from the date he became a permanent part-time sweeper.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows. Since 7/1/2011, the respondent has been working as a sweeper with the petitioner-Bank and has been paid a monthly salary of Rs.2,000..00 The respondent has completed more than 240 days of service in each year. He has not been granted permanency or its benefits. Benefits such as leave, wages and other service benefits available to permanent employees of the petitioner-Bank were not extended to him. The respondent repeatedly requested the management to grant him the benefit of permanency but the management did not take any steps. The respondent further stated that other sweepers, namely Bhagyarathi and Shakuntala, working in other branches of the Bank were paid higher salary and given better service conditions. In these circumstances, the respondent sought a direction to declare him as a permanent workman of the Bank and to grant him all benefits from the date of completion of 240 days of his appointment.

(3.) The Bank filed its written statement and denied the respondent's claim. The Bank submitted that the respondent worked as a sweeper of the residential premises where the branch office is located and that he also worked as sweeper and car- washer for various other residential cooperative housing societies. The Bank contended that for its convenience it had engaged the respondent for about 15 minutes before opening of the branch office. It was further stated that the Bank had no sanctioned post of sweeper, therefore no question of granting permanency arose. The Bank asserted that it never formally appointed the respondent and that he was never an employee of the Bank.