SAHEE RAM Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Manager of the Bank of India, Sriganganagar Branch, marked Anx. 1, for preparation of the panel of work charge employees. He was called for interview and was selected by the Board constituted for the purpose and his name was included in the panel. THEreafter he has worked for more than 240 days in a year as a Badli workman and, therefore, his services which are sought to be terminated by the respondent cannot be done unless the provision of s. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act are complied with.

(2.) A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been claimed that the Budli Sepey is not a workman as per s. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit u/s 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also contended that the writ petition is pre-mature because the petitioner's service has not been terminated. The petitioner has come before this Court apprehending his termination and, therefore, he is entitled to no relief.

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. Kothari that although it is admitted that the petitioner has worked for 240 days but he has worked for that period in three different Branches and, therefore, that period should not be counted for s. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act. This plea has not been taken by the respondents in their return that working in three in three different Branches of the respondent Bank does not constitute a continuous working for 240 days under the same employer. Unless that plea is taken that contention cannot be examined at this stage. When it has been admitted that the petitioner has worked for 240 days then, it has to be held that he is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of s. 25f of the aforesaid Act.