SMT. AVTA SAHA Vs. CANARA BANK AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a widow. She claims a right to be appointed on compassionate grounds as an Agent under the New Nitya Nidhi Scheme being run by the Canara Bank, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). The claim having been rejected by the Bank by passing orders dated May 17. 1991, May 21. 1991 and August 8 1991 (Annexures P.4 P.5 and P.7) she pravs for the issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing these orders. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE Petitioner 's husband (Mr. Ajay Kumar Saha) was working with the Bank as an Agent under the New Nitya Nidhi Scheme. A copy of the agreement dated November 30, 1983 between Mr. Saha and the Bank has been produced as Annexure P.1 Reference to the various terms of the agreement shall be made at the appropriate state. Unfortunately, Mr. Paha expired on April 1, 1991. on his death, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Bank for employment on compassionate grounds. A copy of this application has been produced as Annexure P.2. It is averred that she submitted another application on May 17, 1991, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.3. The Petitioner 's claim was rejected, - -vide letters dated May 17, 1991 and May 21, 1991. It was pointed out by the Bank that "the scheme for employment on compassionate grounds has been evolved in our Bank to provide employment to dependents of our employees who die while in harness. N.N.N.D. Agents are not our employees." The Petitioner then, served a notice dated June 22, 1991 through her counsel, a copy of which has been produced on the record as Annexure P.6. The Bank sent a, reply, - -vide letter dated August 8, 1991. The Petitioner 's claim was stated to be untenable. In the notice sent by the counsel for the Petitioner, even a claim for gratuity and certain other amount was also made. The claim for gratuity was also declined oil the ground that the Petitioner 's husband was not an employee of the Bank. With regard to the amount claimed by the Petitioner on account of arrears due to her husband, it was mentioned that the payment shall be made after completion of procedural formalities. Aggrieved by the action of the Bank in rejecting the Petitioner 's claim for employment on compassionate grounds as also for the payment of gratuity, the Petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The action of the Bank ha& been challenged on the various grounds. It has been claimed that the Bank is an industry and that Petitioner 's husband was a workman. It has also been claimed that even according to the agreement executed between the Petitioner 's husband and the Bank, there was contract of service. Reliance has been placed on the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the Management of Indian Bank Madras v. P.O. Industrial Tribunal Central Madras, 1991 Lab .I.C. 552, in support of her claim.

(3.) THE Petitioner has filed a replication reiterating the stands taken in the petition.