SUNIL KUMAR Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dtd. 10/6/2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 whereby claim of the petitioner for regularization of service has been rejected. The petitioner is further seeking direction to the respondents to regularize his services.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent-bank engaged the petitioner in December' 2007 on casual/temporary basis. The petitioner continued to work with respondent-bank till 2015 and in 2016, the respondent-bank discontinued service of the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent-bank to regularize his service and respondent vide order dtd. 10/6/2016 (Annexure P-8) rejected representation of the petitioner holding that there is no policy under which a daily wager can be regularized and there was no contract of employment between petitioner and respondent-bank.

(3.) The petitioner had worked with respondent-bank from 2007 to 2015 as daily wager and in view of judgment dtd. 19/10/2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Rattan and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-34585-2019 as well as judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 2 SCC 543; H.S. Rajashekara v. State Bank of Mysore and another, (2012) 1 SCC 285, the respondent-bank was bound to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization. The respondent-bank has adopted unfair trade practice by discontinuing service of the petitioner.