CHIMAN SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Peon -cum -Farash by order dated 1 4.6.1967 for a temporary period of 31 days at the Barmer Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. According to the petitioner, his appointment was extended time and again and he continued to serve upto 15.10.1971. Between 1967 to 1 971, in all he worked for 623 days, thereafter his services were terminated. The case of temporary employees whose services were terminated by the Bank was taken up by a Union, as a result of which a decision was taken on 1 6th January, 1 976 according to which the temporary employees were classified into three categories -[i) those who were continuing in service, [ii] those whose services terminated on or after 1st January, 1975 and, [iii] those whose services were terminated prior to 1.1.1975. There was no automatic reinstatement in service of those whose services had come to an end prior to 1.1.1 975, but the re -employment was as a result of their being found suitable for absorption in Bank's services. The petitioner was adjudged suitable and on that basis he was re -appointed vide letter dated 6.2.1980. In the first instance, the appointment was given with effect from 4.5.1979, the date on which the result of petitioner's suitability was declared. However, ultimately, it is alleged, the management as a result of representation made by the Union, allowed the arrears of salary from January, 1 976. It is stated that question about continuity of service and arrears of wages from further back date is also subject matter of negotiations between the Worker's Union and the Bank Management.

(2.) IN this scenario, the petitioner now contends that since termination was void ab initio in 1971, it should now be declared that his termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1 947; his services should be deemed to be continuing with effect from 5.10.71 and he should be allowed arrears of salary from 1971 to 1976 also.

(3.) THE fact that the petitioner did not false any dispute personally, the fact that the petitioner was re -appointed after being adjudged suitable and the fact that whatever petitioner has acquired is as a result of negotiations under the pressure of collective bargaining through the Union and also the fact that, Union is pursuing the matter with the Bank for further benefits; persuade me to opine that no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage ought to be made in favour of the petitioner for allowing arrears of wages for the period for which, admittedly, he has not worked. He has not even alleged that during the period in dispute, he was not gainfully employed also where, which is always a relevant factor in allowing back wages even in cases where termination is held to be illegal. Apart from the fact that I do not find it to be a fir case for inviting extra -ordinary jurisdiction, for adjudication of such disputes in such circumstances involving enquiry into very many facts; appropriate remedy, if any, is under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1 947.