Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 225 (PAT)

Parasnath Sahni v. State Bank Of India

2003-02-25

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner since 9.7.1973 with all consequential benefits. It is the stand of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on 9.7.1973 on daily wages to perform the duty in the State Bank of India at its branch at Buxar and although the respondents have framed a scheme for regularisation of such employee, service of the petitioner has not been regularised. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in paragraph 4 thereof it has been stated as follows : "The deponent respectfully states and submits that the prayer of the petitioner for his permanent absorption on the alleged ground of his working in the Bank on daily wages, is incorrect as such not permissible under the scheme of the Bank. At the outset the deponent states that the petitioner did not work in the Bank at any time, he however worked in the canteen as a canteen boy which is run by the local Implementation Committee and not by the Bank at Main Road, Buxar branch of the Bank." 3. Mr. Dhruv Narain, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an employee of the Bank, respondents were under an obligation to consider his case for regularisation in service. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha however appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the plea of the petitioner that he worked on daily wages as an employee of the bank is unfounded on fact and in fact the petitioner worked in the canteen run by the local Implementation Committee. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed in which the petitioner had made attempt to show that in fact he was working in the bank. However, from perusal of the document placed on record, it is difficult to accept the assertion of the petitioner that he was working in the bank. In fact he working in the canteen run by the local Implementation Committee. However, from perusal of the document placed on record, it is difficult to accept the assertion of the petitioner that he was working in the bank. In fact he working in the canteen run by the local Implementation Committee. Status of an employee working in the canteen came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others V/s. State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle) and others [2000 (1) Labour Law Journal 1441] and the said question has been answered in the following words: We, therefore, hold that employees of the canteens which are run at various branches by the Local Implementation Committee as per the welfare scheme framed by the SBI would not become employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation arising under the Award to run such canteens. Hence, it is not necessary to decide the second question that fresh petition for the same cause was not maintainable in view of the order dated October 14, 1985 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 840 of 1977." 4. In that view of the matter, the plea of the petitioner that he worked on daily wages as an employee of the Bank is not fit to be accepted. Once it is held so, the prayer made by the petitioner for regularising his service cannot be granted. 5. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.