STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. V. BALA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for petitioners and Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent filed a case in Industrial Dispute L.C.No. 97 of 2005 before the 2nd respondent questioning the oral order of retrenchment dtd. 13/8/2002 rendered by the petitioners, thereby to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with all full back wages and is entitled for all attendant benefits. The 1st respondent alleged that he received a call letter from the Employment Exchange, Guntur to attend interview for the post of Driver-cum-Messenger at State Bank of India, Narasaraopet ADB and he selected and appointed on 5/2/1974 against permanent vacancy and that one Mr. Peddabbai was appointed as temporary Driver-cum-Messenger and that his services were regularized in 1978, but whereas the 1st respondent was denied the same. The 1st respondent alleged that he discharged his duties till 1980 at Narasaraopet on monthly wages of Rs.250.00 paid to him from petty cash and he was transferred to Sattenapalli Branch. While he was working in Sattenapalli Branch, he availed a loan for purchase of Jeep bearing No. MRD 5667 for the purpose of Bank and opened an SB Account No. 24/7645 and the petitioner bank used to deposit the amount into the said account after deducting installments of loan amount directly from his salary, later he was transferred to Narasaraopet Branch on 23/6/1991, where he worked till 30/4/1997. Later he worked at Peddakurapadu Branch of the Bank. The Bank utilized the services of the 1st respondent to operate jeep and the bank used to pay the amounts by way of Banker's Cheque till 1/5/1997, on which date his services were terminated. The 1st respondent was not paid salaries as per the scale applicable to the driver, but he was removed from services w.e.f 1/5/1997 without any notice, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the 1st respondent questioning the alleged inaction of the petitioners filed a case before the 2nd respondent.