PALI CENTRAL CO Vs. SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 03, 1991 by which the petitioner- respondent's writ petition has been allowed, oral order terminating his service has been set aside and the appellant has been directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages. The facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal may be summerised thus.

(2.) On Nov. 28, 1989, the petitioner filed writ petition with the averments, in short, as follows. On Aug. 04, 1986, he was employed as a clerk by the Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be called the Bank) on daily wages @ Rs. 20.00. His employment was malafide discontinued by the Bank from time to time. Year-wise details of the employment are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(RAJ)9_19931.html</FRM> From July, 1987 to June, 1988, he has completed 244 days of service. Payments were made to him through Manager's cheques. Their counter-foils are Annexures 2 (1) to 2 (16). He is not being kept in employment by the Bank after July, 1989. No order in writing terminating his services has been passed. The Bank has violated the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant law.

(3.) In its reply, the Bank admits that the petitioner worked as a clerk on daily-wages in Surajpole and Laxmi Market branches of the Bank for certain period and counter-foils Annexures 2 (1) to 2 (16) were issued by the said Branches. The remaining averments have been denied. It has further been averred that a person is taken on daily-wages by a Branch Manager when in its branch shortage of staff arises on account of their going on leave or seasonal increase in work, writ petition is not maintainable against a Co-operative Bank, no notice for demand of justice has been given, many disputed questions of fact are involved in this writ petition which can only be resolved by a labour court, periods during which the petitioner worked in said two different branches have not separately been given, employers were the Managers of these two branches and not the appellant-Bank, the petitioner did not work for 240 days or more in any year in one branch, the writ petition is not maintainable as Managers of the branches have not been impleaded as respondents and he has efficacious alternate remedy in the Labour Court.