Partly allowed

Satishkumar S.Nivankari v. Dena Bank

Bombay HC12 Jul 2005WP/2579/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a tribal order directing regularization upon vacancy arising. The High Court held immediate regularization upon 240 days is invalid per SC precedent. It remanded the matter to determine the specific date from which regularization should apply.

What did the court decide?

Petition partly allowed; matter remanded to the Tribunal to determine the date from which regularization applies.

Satishkumar S.Nivankari Vs Dena Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

.PL60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2579 OF 2002

¶5

Satishkumar S.Nirankari.. Petitioner
versus
Dena Bank..Respondent
...

¶6

Mr.N.M.Ganguli for Petr.

¶7

Mr S.K.Talsania i.b Sanjay Udeshi & Co for Respt

¶8

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J

¶9

DATED : 12th July 2005.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1. By this petition the petitioner workman
challenges part of the judgment and final order
dated 9th May 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal II, Mumbai
(for short the tribunal).

¶12

2. The petitioner was appointed as a
temporary/badli peon, at Orlem, Branch of the
respondent bank on 15th May, 1989 on daily wages of
Rs.50/-. Though the petitioner completed 240 days
of continuous work the petitioner was not absorbed
as a regular workmen. Inspite of the petitioner’s
request his services were not regularised and he

¶13

¶14

was continued only as a badli workman till 31st May
1999 when the petitioner’s services were
terminated. At the request of the petitioner the
Central Government made a reference under section
10 of the Industrrial Disputes Act to the tribunal
on the following :

¶15

" Whether the action of the management of
Dena Bank in terminating the services of
Shri Satish Kumar S.Nirankari Sub-staff with

¶16

effect from 31st May 1999 and
non-regularisation in bank’s services in
sub-staff cadre is legal and justified ? If
not what relief the workmen is entitled to?"

¶17

3. After permitting the parties to adduce the
evidence and hearing them the tribunal by its order
dated 9th May 2002 held that the action of the
respondent bank in not regularising the services of
the petitioner was not legal and not justified and
ordered :

¶18

" Management Dena Bank is directed to
regularise Nirankari in sub-staff cadre as
per the rules as and when permanent vacancy
arises."

¶19

4. That part of the order which directs

¶20

¶21

regularisation with effect from the date when the
permanent vacancy arises is challenged in this writ
petition.

¶22

5. The respondent has not challenged the award of
the tribunal and has reinstated the petitioner in
its employment. By an order dated 25th November,
2002 this court while admitting the petition this
Court directed the respondents to regularise the
petitioner in service with effect from the date of
the award of the tribunal i.e. 9th May, 2002 as
and by way of interim relief. The petitioner is
unwilling to accept the interim order passed by
this court on 25th November, 2002 as the final
order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner is entitled to be
absorbed in employment immediately on completion of
240 days and needs an adjudication on this issue.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the respondent invites my
attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Manager, R.B.I. Bangalore vs S.Mani reported in
2005 II CLR 3. In para 54 of the decision the
Supreme Court quoted with approval a passage from
its earlier decision which runs as follows:

¶24

"Regularisation in our considered opinion is
not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by
any "State" within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India or any body or
authority governed by a Statutory Act or the

¶25

¶26

Rules framed thereunder. It is also now
well-settled that an appointment made in
violation of the mandatory provisions of the
Statute and in particular ignoring the
minimum educational qualification and other
essential qualification would be wholly
illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by
taking recourse to regularisation. (See
State of H.P. vs Suresh Kumar Verma and
Anr. JT 1996 (2) SC 455). "

¶27

7. Therefore contention of the petitioner that he

¶28

is entitled to be made as a permanent workman
immediately on completion of 240 days of completion
of service cannot be accepted. The issue however
still remains as to from what date the petitioner
is entitled to be confirmed. According to the
learned counsel for the parties the possible dates
for confirmation could be:

¶29

i) the date when permanent vacancy arose in
the concerned branh of the respondent bank.

¶30

(ii) the date when permanent vacancy arose
in any other branch of the respondent to
which the petitioner’s services could be
transferred.

¶31

(iii) the date of the reference to the
Industrial Tribunal by the Central
Government.

¶32

(iv) the date of the order of the tribunal.

¶33

¶34

8. Though the tribunal has accepted first of the
aforesaid four dates as the date of regularisation
it has not given any reasons for choosing the date.
In the circumstances, the matter is required to be
remanded back to the tribunal for decision on the
date from which the petitioner’s services be
regularised.

¶35

9. For these reasons, the petition is partly
allowed. The matter is remanded back to the
tribunal for the purpose of considering and giving
a reasoned finding as to the date from which the
petitioner’s services should be deemed to be
regularised.

¶36

D.G.KARNIK, J

Satishkumar S.Nivankari v. Dena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satishkumar S.Nivankari v. Dena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Mubasgera M.Sayed and Anr.

M/S. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Anr. Vs General Kamgar Union (Red Flag) and Anr.

Saudhar Gochan Kahar Vs N.T.C.(S.M.)Ltd. and Ors.

Badamiben N.Jain and Ors. Vs Mcgm and Anr.

The Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs Mr Boloor Vijay Kumar Anchan and Ors.

Ankush Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corpn.of Greater Mumbai and Ors.