Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. For the sake of convenience, this Court refers the facts and other relevant orders from W.P(C) No.8865/2005.

3. The workman, Shri Naseem Ahmed ("Respondent/ Workman") was engaged by the Vijaya Bank ("Petitioner/Management") as a peon on 08.05.1986. His services were terminated by the Petitioner/Management on 21.04.1988. A settlement was signed between the Union representing the employees and the Petitioner NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023: DHC: 2996 management in 1988 ("1988 settlement") pertaining to the absorption of the temporary workmen in the Bank. Terms of settlement is reproduced herein below:

"1. ELIGIBILITY
(a) All temporary workmen who worked as peons for aggregate period of 60 days or more in the Bank during the period between 1-1-1983 and 30-6-1988 are eligible to apply to the bank for continuation for regular employment as peons in the Bank. However, in respect of those temporary workmen who were working as temporary peons on 1-1-1983 or 2-1-1983, if 1-1-1983 happened to be a holiday, temporary service put in by them prior to 1/21-1983, as the case may be, shall be reckoned for the purpose of computing total number of days of temporary service put in by the temporary peons. For the purpose of computation of number of days on which a temporary peon has actually worked in the Bank shall include the intervening weekly holidays and holidays declared under the Negotiable instruments Act.
"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank in not giving the preference for re-employment as per the provision of section 25 of the LD. Act to Sh Naseem Ahmed is just, fair and legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date."

6. The Respondent/Workman filed his statement of claim wherein he averred that the Petitioner/Management failed to take him back in employment in terms of 1988 settlement despite several representations made to the Management. Respondent/workman also alleged violation of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act and prayed for reinstatement along with full back wages. The Petitioner/Management to controvert the written statement stating that the Respondent/workman was a temporary peon and he was terminated automatically in terms of the temporary appointment. It is also stated in written statement that since Respondent/workman did not dispense his service for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months, he is not entitled for the benefits under Chapter V-A and V-B of the I.D. Act. Further, that the NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023: DHC: 2996 Respondent/workman failed to submit his application in accordance with the 1988 settlement, therefore, he is not entitled for the absorption and back wages.

3. RANKING LIST OF EMPANELLED CANDIDATES

(a) List of those candidates who secured aggregate of 30 or 25 marks, as the case may be, shall be empanelled in the order of their aggregate marks secured in the interview with weightage for temporary service. From the panel so prepared. Division-wise list of empanelled candidates will be drawn for Divisions in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Kerala, taking into account the last branch/office at which temporary workman had worked as Peon.