Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kotla Ravi Kumar Ano. vs Chairman, A.P. Grameena Bank, Kadapa ... on 7 November, 2024
1
APHC010733592011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 21744/2011
Between:
Kotla Ravi Kumar & Ano. and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Chairman A P Grameena Bank Kadapa Ano and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VEDULA SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V UMA DEVI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioners 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 2 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, 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 petitioners submits that the petitioners were working as part-time staff in the respondents' Bank. However, their services were terminated, without any notice. The petitioners are seeking simple directions to the respondents to comply with the provisions of the Section 25H.
3. The learned Standing 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 respondents in their counter affidavit 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 petitioners, who filed writ petition Nos.16258 of 2010 and 20459 of 2010 had misrepresented to the Court and informed the Court that the petitioners were issued call letters. It is submitted that no call letters were issued to anyone.
3
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 to consider the case of the petitioners 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 SR 07.11.2024