DILIP SAIKIA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed by the State Bank of India as a Site Engineer in the category of Jr. Engineer in the year 1992, on purely temporary basis. His services were continued from time to time and every time it was extended for one year. Lastly in the year 1996 an agreement was got executed by the Bank with the petitioner in which it was stipulated in para 6 that his services can be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. Following execution of the said contract in Jan/96 on 23rd July/96 petitioner was served by the Bank with a notice stating that the Bank administration had decided to terminate his services with effect from 1st Sept/96. Petitioner has challenged the said notice on the ground that the order passed by the Bank is by way of arbitrary exercise of power, it had reserved for terminating services of petitioner's contention is that no reason has been assigned for termination of his service in the said notice and in a very illegal fashion only to deny the petitioner the chance of becoming permanent employee. According to the petitioner there are number of construction works which have been undertaken by the State Bank of India in which petitioner services may be required. The fact that there is no want of work with the State Bank of India justifying retention of the services of petitioner and that his services were still required in connection with those works has not been denied by respondent Bank. The respondents have however justified the termination of the petitioner's service on the basis that under Para 6 of the contract by which petitioner was governed his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice and reason hence it was a'cdbrdingly terminated. No reason was required to be assigned as to why his sevices had been terminated ex- cept that his services were no longer required. It is not the case of the respondents as diclosed in their contract agreement that petitioner's work and conduct was not upto the mark and that he did not discharges his duties effectively. It is also not the case of the Bank that no work was available for being performed by the petitioner due to overstaffing.

(2.) In these circumstances, allegations made by the petitioner that there was sufficient work in the Bank for which petitioner's employment could be continued and that the only motive or for his termination was to deprieve him from regular employment seems to be substantiated.

(3.) In West Bengal Electricity Board - Vs- Desk Bandhu Chose, AIR (1985) SC 722 the Supreme Court has disproved stipulation of the nature as in para-6 of the Contract which the petitioner was called by the Bank to enter for entering its service. The Supreme Court has held that such stipulations in the contract of service are violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The above view has found full endorsement by Constitution bench of the Suprer Court in Delhi Transport Corporation -Vs- D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR (1991) SCR 101.