NARENDERS Vs. CENTRAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a common question of law as to the interpretation of the expression "Continuous service for not less than one year" occurring in S. 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the context of the termination of the petitioners' services without complying the requirements of S. 25 (F) of the Act.

(2.) The petitioners who are either members of the clerical or subordinate staff of the Central Bank of India, the respondent herein, were appointed for varying periods from time to time and on the expiry of one such period of service, they were not reappointed. Of these petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2547, 2551, 2556/76 are clerks belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2548, 2549 ,2550, 2552, 2559, 2561, 2S63, 2564, 2636, 2638 and 3122 of 1976 also are all members of the clerical staff bat belong to the non-schduled castes and non-scheduled tribes. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2554, 2557, 2558, 2560, and 2562 and 2633/76 are members of the subordinate staff.

(3.) As the question of law that is raised is common to all the writ Petitions, suffice to mention the facts set out in W.P. Nos. 2547/76. The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk on.a temporary basis on 27-11 -1974 and be worked for a period of one month and three days. On the expiry of the said period of appointment he was reappointed for varying periods but with some interruptions. He was last appointed on 1-6-1976 and he worked till 26-6-1976. On the expiry of the said period he was not reappointed. The petitioner claims that he has actually worked for a period of more than 240 days during a period of 12 calender months preceding the date of the termination of his service and was therefore entitled to one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of such notice and also retrenchment compensation as envisaged by S. 5 (F) of the Act. He contends that in as much as the requirements of the section have not been complied with, the termination of his services is illegal and ineffective. He, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate him in service with full back wages and all attendant benefits.