Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.2. By stoutly denying the contentions of the petitioners that they have been working continuously, it is stated that they are not entitled to seek regularization of their services. According to the respondent Bank, there are regular Messengers-cum-Sweepers and whenever regular employee goes on leave or absents from duty, temporary arrangement is made locally by the concerned bank to undertake maintenance work and as and when such work is undertaken, the person will be paid daily wage. In similar manner, petitioners were engaged as and when there was requirement, but they never worked continuously. It is further asserted that the requirement of this nature is also for a limited period of less than three hours in a day. Some contingent fund is provided with the Branch Manager for up keep of the branch and by utilising this amount such engagement is made. Branch Manager does not issue appointment orders and no record is maintained, as they are utilising the services of locally available persons on a given day where there is requirement. It is contended that respondent Bank has resorted to recruitment to fill up regular Messenger-cum-Sweeper by strictly following the Regulations governing the employment in the Regional Rural Banks and no deviation can be permitted.

19. Having cleared this issue, it is necessary to consider the claims of petitioners in W.P.No.14457 of 2010.

20. On going through the pleadings of petitioners as well as respondent Bank, following facts are not disputed. Petitioners are engaged from 1993-1994 engaged according to petitioners continuously, and engaged according to respondent Bank as and when work is required on a daily assessment basis whenever regular employee goes on leave or absent from duty; that there are vacancies and recruitment process is undertaken; though notification was issued in the year 2010 so far recruitment process is not completed and the said vacancies remain unfilled; it appears atleast from 2011 the petitioners are being engaged continuously through the outsourcing agency and now Attendance Register is maintained.

21.1 In the light of the submissions of both sides that the petitioners are being engaged from 1993-1994, perusal of the voluminous documents filed by the petitioners would also disclose that it is not in dispute atleast that as and when required, petitioners are being engaged. Some of the certificates filed by the petitioners and the relevant notings by the respondent Bank Officers would disclose that petitioners were engaged in the absence of a regular employee. However, it is not clear and respondent Bank has not explained, even though it is a specific assertion of the petitioners from the beginning, that petitioners are also paid bonus. If what is contended by the respondent - Bank is correct i.e., petitioners are engaged on a particular day if the regular employee is absent or on leave by local sourcing of such persons to undertake menial job and they are paid wages of that day, the question of payment of bonus would not arise. Similarly, reflecting their names in the relevant records also would not arise. In other words, what emerges from scanning through the several documents filed by the petitioners along with the rejoinder in W.V.M.P.No.254 of 2011 is, though petitioners are engaged as and when regular employee was on leave, their names are maintained in the musters of respondent Bank, though not in writing or with the understanding by the local Manager and as and when they are required, they are engaged.

21.2 Thus, even though there is no regular assignment or continuous work, the person is expected to be available to work as and when called and in that sense he cannot undertake any other job. Undertaking any other job may result in losing the opportunity, even though it may be intermitantly given when a regular employee goes on leave. Thus, assuming what is contended by the respondent Bank may be true that the engagement of the petitioners was only when regular employee goes on leave, their availability has to be continuous and therefore they cannot take up any other assignment. As noted above, it would clearly amount to exploitation of labour and adopting the principle of hire and fire which was long ago given up when India became independent and is a democratic country governed by rule of law. It also amounts to misusing power to give false hope to the people coming from lower strata of society and utilising them whenever and wherever required at their whims and fancies. Based on these facts, the issue as addressed extensively by the respective counsels needs consideration.