Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Benji vs Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, on 31 December, 2024
APHC010416032013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 5751/2013
Between:
M. Benji ...PETITIONER
AND
Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VEDULA SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to comply with Section 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act.
Section 25H reads as follows:
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.
Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] [ Substituted by Act 36 of 1964, 2 Section 16, for certain words (w.e.f. 19.12.1964).] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as part-time staff in the respondents' Bank. However, his service was terminated, without any notice. The petitioner is seeking simple directions to the respondents to comply with the provisions of the Section 25H.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the year 2011 a recruitment drive was conducted and the eligible candidates were considered and regularized. It is submitted that the respondents are bound to comply with the provisions of Section 25H, as it is a statutory mandate, which is required to be followed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents have also submitted that the respondents' bank is a Regional Rural Bank and is governed by the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The respondents have conducted recruitment of the staff in accordance with the procedure laid down under law. It is also submitted that the petitioner, who filed writ petition Nos.16258 of 2010 and 20459 of 2010 had misrepresented to the Court and informed the Court that the petitioner was issued call letter. It is submitted that no call letter was issued to anyone.
5. Considering the submissions and after going through pleadings, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 25H imposes a statutory mandate that every establishment has to comply invariably. The respondents 3 to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Section 25H as and when there exists a vacancy.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ HARINATH.N, J 31.12.2024 KMS 4 300 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N W.P.No.5751 of 2013 Date: 31.12.2024 KMS