Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Bombay Award granting reinstatement should not be passed in the cases of daily rated employees MANU/MH/1796/2022 - (06 Jun 2022) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">State Bank of India Vs. Rajkumar Baban Mahabade</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenges the award passed by the Labour Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned award by contending that the Labour Court has committed serious error in partly allowing the reference and directing reinstatement of the respondent. It is ignored that he was temporary employee and had no right to continue in service. 
In the facts of the present case, since it is found that the Labour Court has erred in not considering the relevant factors i.e. nature of service, mode and manner of recruitment, length of service and that the respondent was working as temporary daily wager employee, the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the settled legal position that even if order of retrenchment is passed in violation of Section 25-F of the said Act, but the award granting reinstatement should not be passed in the cases of daily rated employees. 
Though the respondent has worked for almost 10 years as casual temporary daily wager, he could not be absorbed because of non availability of posts in the year 1997-98. The Labour Court has committed an error in granting the respondent the relief of reinstatement on part time/temporary post. Considering the facts of the case, the Labour Court ought to have granted adequate compensation to the respondent. 
The labour court was not justified in granting the respondent reinstatement with continuity of service. The labour court ought to have awarded adequate compensation to the respondent instead of granting reinstatement. 
While granting reinstatement and continuity of service and 60% backwages, to the respondent, the labour court has failed to consider relevant factors like nature of service rendered by the respondent, mode and manner of recruitment, so also the admitted position on record that the services of the respondent were engaged purely on casual and temporary basis on daily wages. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of reinstatement with continuity of service and 60% back wages, passed by the labour court is unsustainable, instead, award of monetary compensation would be appropriate in the facts of the present case. In view of the fact that the respondent is not in service since last more than 23 years and the settled legal position that daily rated employee has no right to continue in service, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award passed by the labour court directing reinstatement of service as part time employee, with continuity of service and 60% back wages cannot be sustained.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Reinstatement, Direction, Validity</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>