Dismissed

Rameshbhai M Rabari v. Vijaya Bank

Gujarat HC3 Aug 2005SCA/10570/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Gujarat Bench accommodates a petitioner challenging an Industrial Tribunal's award dismissing a reference regarding the termination of a daily-rated peon. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the worker was hired temporarily to fill a vacancy during the selection process, had not completed 2

What did the court decide?

The special civil application is rejected and dismissed at the threshold as there is no substance in the petitioner's claim.

Rameshbhai M Rabari Vs Vijaya Bank — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2005)

¶1

1/6

¶2

JUDGMENT

¶3

SCA/10570/2005

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10570 of 2005

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

¶8

==============================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶12

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶13

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶14

============================================================== RAMESHBHAI M RABARI - Petitioner(s)

¶15

Versus

¶16

VIJAYA BANK - Respondent(s)

¶17

==============================================================

¶18

Appearance :

¶19

MR MUKESH H RATHODfor Petitioner No(s).: 1.

¶20

None for Respondent No(s).: 1.

¶21

==============================================================

¶22

CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

¶23

Date : 03/08/2005

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

1.In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of

¶26

the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged the legality and validity of the judgment

¶27

SCA/10570/20052/6

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad
dated 19.5.2003 passed in Reference (ITCN) No.1 of
1998 in dismissing the said reference.

¶30

2.The petitioner who was serving as the Daily
Rated Peon with the respondent Bank raised the
industrialdisputechallenginghisalleged

¶31

termination by way of Reference (ITCN) No.1 of 1998
which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad
for its adjudication. It was the contention on behalf

¶32

of the petitioner that he was appointed with
aforesaid bank with effect from 12th March, 1993 as

¶33

Peon on permanent basis after following due procedure
and after interview, however, the petitioner was not

¶34

issued and given any order in writing and all of
sudden his services came to be terminated with effect
from 1.8.1994 and therefore, it was without following

¶35

the requirements as provided under Section-25-F of

¶36

the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, it was
requested to allow the reference by directing the
respondent to reinstate the workman in service. The
reference was opposed by the respondent bank by
submitting written statement interalia contending

¶37

SCA/10570/20053/6JUDGMENT

¶38

that new branch was open at Anand and till regularly
selected candidate / peon was appointed, the
petitioner was appointed as daily wager workman
without following any procedure and selection and as
soon as the newly regularly selected candidate was
appointed, the petitioner was told not to come on
duty. It was further contention on behalf of the
respondent that the the petitioner has not completed
240 days in the last preceding year and therefore,
there was no question of following procedure under

¶39

Section-25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Accepting the submissions and contentions made on
behalf of the respondent bank and considering the
evidence on record and after holding that the
petitioner has failed to prove that his appointment
was after following due procedure and selection and
after inviting applications, and that, he was a daily

¶40

wager workmen in the newly open branch at Anand till
the regularly selected candidate is available and on
regularly selected candidate being appointed, the
petitioner was not called for duty and that the
petitioner has not completed 240 days in the last
preceding year of his alleged termination, the

¶41

SCA/10570/20054/6

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Tribunal has dismissed the reference. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed
by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad passed in
aforesaid Reference(ITCN) No.1 of 1998, the
petitioner has preferred the present special civil
application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.

¶44

3.Shri Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner was appointed after due selection
and interview process at Anand Branch and it was the
continuous work and therefore, considering Section-

¶45

25-B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before
terminating services of the petitioner, procedure
required under Section-25-F of the I.D.Act was
required to be followed and since not followed, there
is breach of Section-25-F and therefore, the Tribunal
ought to have allowed the reference by directing the
respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner.

¶46

4.On appreciation of evidence, the Industrial
Tribunal has held that the petitioner has failed to

¶47

SCA/10570/20055/6JUDGMENT

¶48

prove that the appointment of the petitioner was
after following the due selection procedure and

¶49

formalities so required for the purpose and after
application are invited. It is not in dispute that
the new branch of the respondent bank was open at
Anand and till the regularly selected candidate was
being appointed, the petitioner was appointed as he
was residing in the same town. It is also not in
dispute that that the petitioner was appointed as
daily rated peon and that newly regularly selected

¶50

candidate was posted at Anand Branch and the
petitioner came to be relieved and / or not called
for duty as the regularly selected candidate was
available. In absence of any evidence to prove that
the appointment of the petitioner was after due

¶51

selection and interview, it cannot be said that the
appointment of the petitioner was after due selection

¶52

on permanent basis. Appointment in the bank even as

¶53

Peon is required to be made after due selection and
after inviting applications from the public at large

¶54

from the eligible candidates and conducting the
interview as required under the prescribed procedure.

¶55

Therefore, appointment of the petitioner was

¶56

SCA/10570/20056/6JUDGMENT

¶57

obviously dehors the due procedure and selection.
Even otherwise, as come on record it was found that
the petitioner had not completed 240 days continuous
service in the last preceding year as the daily rated
peon. Under the circumstances, when the petitioner
has not completed 240 days as daily rated peon in the
last preceding year, there was no question of
following any procedure as required under Section-25-
F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Under the
circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal has rightly
dismissed the Reference which is not required to be
interfered with by this Court in exercise of the
powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.

¶58

5.In above view of the matter, there is no
substance in the present petition and the same
deserves to be rejected and it is dismissed
accordingly at the threshold.

¶59

=kailash=

Rameshbhai M Rabari v. Vijaya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshbhai M Rabari v. Vijaya 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

Chhani Village Panchayat through Sarpanch Vs Ramsinh Jokhabhai Meda

Raojibhai Melabhai Mali Vs Chhaani Gram Panchayat

Setabhai Bharatbhai Damor Vs Chhaani Gram Panchayat

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Hinusbbhai Rahimbhai Kharanjiya

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Pratapsinh K Rathod

Natwarlal Bhagwanji Bhatt Vs Superintendent-Govt.Hospital