SHIV PRASAD Vs. UCO BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 18 -3 -2014 passed by the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank (hereinafter the Bank') dismissing the representation filed by him for regularisation of his services.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the services of the petitioner as casual labour engaged on 12 -3 -1991 were dispensed with on 1 -10 -1991. Writ petition No. 3548/1992 followed. Vide order dated 25 -3 -1994, this court directed that the petitioner be reinstated. The Bank was however allowed to resort to Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the 1947 Act') if so warranted. Pursuant to court's order dated 25 -3 -1994, the petitioner was reinstated on 6 -5 -1994. Availing the liberty granted by this court, the respondent bank invoked Sections 25F and 25G of the ID Act and dispensed with his services on 6 -5 -1994 by paying retrenchment compensation. This time aggrieved of his retrenchment, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of the 1947 Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter the Tribunal'), which vide award dated 27 -12 -1999 found the petitioner's removal/retrenchment from service illegal and required the petitioner to be reinstated with back wages. The Bank challenged the award dated 27 -12 -1999 before this court under writ petition No. 4991/2000, but without success. The writ petition was dismissed on 8 -5 -2006. DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 742/2006, at the instance of the Bank also suffered the same fate on 7 -4 -2011. The petitioner was consequently reinstated in service under the award dated 27 -12 -1999.

(3.) THE petitioner again preferred a writ petition No. 13272/2012 before this court, which was finally disposed of by order dated 4 -12 -2013 requiring the Bank to again consider the petitioner's case for regularisation within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the courts order. Thereafter the petitioner's case for regulation of services with the Bank has been dismissed vide order dated 18 -3 -2014, albeit the petitioner has been continued in service as a casual labourer. Hence this writ petition.