Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Shankar Shah vs Madhyanchal Gramin Bank on 3 September, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 3rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 18248 of 2022
Between:-
1. RAVI SHANKAR SHAH S/O SHRI KAMLA
PRASAD SHAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED GRAM POST
POUNDI NOWGAI TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
SINGROULI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJESH KUMAR PATEL S/O SHRI
RAMABHILASH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O GRAM NOUDHIYA, POST GORBI, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHYAMLAL SHAH S/O SHRI RAM MANOHAR
SHAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, GRAM
KOYALKUNTH, POST MADA, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAM NIWAS SHAH S/O SHRI KAMLA PD. SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O GRAM POST
POUNDI NAYGAI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUKHLAL GUPTA S/O SHRI RAMJAG GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O GRAM
KARSUWARAJA, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. JAI PRAKASH PATEL S/O SHRI BACHHALAL
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O GRAM
MEDHOLI, POST SINGRAULI, COLLIERY,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. RAMLAKHAN JAISWAL S/O SHRI JAGYABHAN
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O GRAM
BANIYATOLA, POST BARAMBABA, TEHSIL
GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. PUSHPENDRA PANDEY S/O SHRI RAVINANDAN
PD. PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/7/2022
11:31:56 AM
2
SUBHASH NAGAR, WARD NO.2, BANIYA
COLONY, SIDHI MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. GULAB PD. JAISWAL S/O SHRI INDRAJEET
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O GRAM
AMAHIYA, POST MADWAS, TEHSIL MAJHOULI,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RAM MILAN KUSHWAHA S/O SHRI LOLAR PD.
KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O
GRAM POST KARTHUA, TEHSIL CHITRANGI,
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. VINAY KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI SANTA PD. SONI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R.O GRAM SAMDA,
POST JIYAWAN, TEHSIL DEOSAR,DISTRICT
SINGRAULI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. ATUL KUMAR TIWARI S/O SHRI RAMABHILASH
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O GRAM
GIJWAR POST GIJWAR, TEHSIL MAJHOULI,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ CHANDURKAR, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN HEAD OFFICE PODDAR COLONY IN
FRONT OF MAHILA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE
HOSTEL SAGAR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GENERAL MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL
GRAMIN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE INFRONT
OF MAHILA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE HOSTEL,
PODDAR COLONY, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION
OF INDIA MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK
REGIONAL OFFICE COLLECTORATE ROAD,
MUNNIBAI COLONY, SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
B A N K BRANCH PARSONA, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
B A N K BRANCH KASARGATE, DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/7/2022
11:31:56 AM
3
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
BANK BRANCH KHUTAR, DISTRICT SINGRAULI
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
B A N K DISTRICT SINGRAULI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
B A N K BRANCH KARSUWALAL, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
BANK BRANCH MORWA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
B A N K BRANCH BARAMBADA, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
B A N K BRANCH KARTHUA, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
B A N K BRANCH MADWAS, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
BANK BRANCH DEOSAR, DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
14. BRANCH MANAGER, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN
BANK BRANCH GIJWAR, DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIKRAM JOHRI, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this writ petition while praying for the following reliefs :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 9/7/2022 11:31:56 AM 4"In vie of the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioners humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned oral termination of the petitioners and further quash the impugned letter of information dated 2-8-2022 and consequently respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioners in service.
Any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed including the cost of the case."
2. The facts as putforth in the petition reflect that the petitioners herein were employed with erstwhile Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank. Howeve, Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank along with two other Banks were amalgamated and a new bank came into existence with effect from 01-11-2012 in the name and style of Madhyanchal Gramin Bank constituted under Section 23-A of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 .
3. A circular dated 12-12-2012 was issued by respondent/Bank governing the service conditions of the employees who were engaged with the erstwhile Bank, which were later on amalgamated and a new bank, namely, Madhyanchal Gramin Bank was constituted. The said circular was subject- matter of challenge in W.P. No.196/2013.
4. This Court vide order dated 03-12-2013 partly set aside the said Circular while holding that respondents are prohibited to handover the daily-wagers appointed by the transferer Regional Bank to private agencies. This Court further directed to allow them to continue in service as engaged by the erstwhile Rural Bank on the same terms and conditions which were applicable to them.
5. The said order was passed by the employee by filing a writ appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 9/7/2022 11:31:56 AM 5 forming the subject-matter of W.A. No.473/2014, which was allowed vide order date 10-7-2017 contained in Annexure-P/4 and the order passed by the learned Single Bench was set aside. The Division Bench further observed that services of the workmen can be dispensed with as and when it is considered appropriate by following due process of law.
6. The order passed by the Division Bench was further assailed by employees before the Apex Court. However, the Special Leave Petition was also disposed of and the order passed by the Division Bench remained affirmed. Thereafter, respondents have issued communication impugned dated 02-8-2022 contained in Annexure-P/6 assailing which the present petition has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the impugned communication is unsustainable inasmuch as the respondents do not dispute that the petitioners herein, are workmen and, therefore, there cannot be dispensation of their services without following due process of law as held by the Division Bench of this Court.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that the communication impugned runs counter to the provisions of Clause 7(a) of the Notification, dt.01-22-2012 contained in Annexure-P/1. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that there is no dispute as regards averments made in the petition. Respondents do not dispute that the petitioners herein have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, they have acquired the status of workmen in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9. Therefore, while placing reliance in the case of Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 458 and Mahesh Bhargava vs. State of M.P. and others, 1993 MPLJ 586, learned counsel for petitioners submits Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 9/7/2022 11:31:56 AM 6 that the impugned communication deserves to be quashed and the petitioners herein, deserve to be reinstated in services.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/Bank submits that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as disputed questions of facts are involved, which can only be gone into by the Industrial-cum-Labour Court.
11. Learned counsel for respondents further contends that the issue was already dealt with elaborately in earlier round of litigation and particularly, after the decision of the Division Bench, there is no scintilla of doubt that petitioners have remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as laid down by the Division Bench in para 7 of the judgment. It is further submission of the learned counsel for respondents that petitioners were offered retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the petitioners refused to accept the same and, therefore, amount of compensation was sent through cheques on the addresses available with the Bank.
12. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that as disputed questions of facts are involved, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. He further contends that even in the case of Jasmer Singh (supra) the petitioner therein had travelled to the Apex Court after disposal of the dispute by the competent Labourt Court.
13. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and others, (2008) 12 SCC 675 (para 37) and A.P. Foods vs. S. Samuel and others, (2006) 5 SCC 469 (paras 10 and 13).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 9/7/2022 11:31:56 AM 714. Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the records.
15. Having considered rival submissions of the parties, perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. No.196/2013 reflects that initially respondents were restrained from handing over daily-wagers to private agencies and they were allowed to continue in services on the same terms and conditions, as engaged by erstwhile Regional Rural Bank. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A. No.473/2014, Annexure-P/4.
16. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench makes it abundantly clear that the Division Bench while setting aside the order passed by Single Bench observed, that a daily-wager is entitled for protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but there cannot be any prohibition to not terminate their services and to continue them in service. Relevant paras 7 and 8 of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.473/2014 are reproduced hereunder :
"7. A daily wager, by the nomenclature itself, is not a regular employee of the Bank. They might have beer inducted as daily wagers without following the procedure to fill up a public post. Such daily wagers have a protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but there cannot be any prohibition not to terminate their services and to continue them in service as engaged by the erstwhile Regional Rural Banks. In fact, such protection is not available even to the regular employees much less to the daily wagers, who have no established employer and employee relationship.
8. Considering the aforesaid, we find that the orders Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 9/7/2022 11:31:56 AM 8 passed by the learned Single Bench are not sustainable. Accordingly, the same are set aside. However, the services of the workmen can be dispensed with as and when it is considered appropriate by following due process of law. With the said direction and liberty, the writ appeals shall stand disposed of."
17. The aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was not interfered with by the Apex Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition filed at the instance of the employees. Thus, if in the light of para 7 of the judgment of the Division Bench averments contained in para 8 of the preliminary objection filed by the respondents are examined, it would reveal that respondents have stated that the Management of the Bank cannot keep the petitioners indefinitely on their roll for reasons of its own. The relevant extraction of para 8 of the preliminary objection is reproduced :
"8.... ........The petitioners may join such an agency and get employment through it if they so desire. But, the management of the Bank cannot keep them indefinitely on their roll for reasons of its own."
18. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the lis has direct nexus with the 'dispute' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Division Bench also in W.A. No.473/2014 clearly held that such daily-wagers are entitled for protection under the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, in the considered view of this Court the order impugned dt.12-12-2012, Annexure- P/2 cannot be gone into in the present writ petition, inasmuch as, as per averments made in the return filed by respondents, employer is not willing to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 9/7/2022 11:31:56 AM 9 retain the petitioners any further.
19. Thus, in the light of the order passed by Division Bench in W.A. No.473/2014, the petitioners herein, are at liberty to approach competent court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, so far as present petition is concerned, interference is declined.
20. Ex-consequenti, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE ac Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 9/7/2022 11:31:56 AM