GIRDHAR GOPAL SAINI Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was initially appointed on 2. 11. 78 on a permanent post at State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Srimadhopur, District Sikar. Since the date of appointment he continuously worked for 162 days but without any notice and all of a sudden he was orally not permitted to mark his signature on the attendance register with effect from 21. 1. 1979.

(3.) BESIDES the above, the respondent-Bank has further contended that the dispute has been raised with inordinate delay and hence the petition suffers from laches. In my view, since the Bank has not violated the provisions of Sec. 25f, G & H of the Act and the petitioner had worked in 1988-89 against the leave vacancy and as such, he cannot have any legal right to claim any permanency in employment.