Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2014 (ALL)

Prem Pal Singh v. Etah Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd.

2016-05-24

UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Prem Pal Singh is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 20.4.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 21758 of 1991 (Prem Pal Singh Vs. Etah Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.) wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioner appellant on the premises that petitioner appellant was a daily-wager engaged by the respondent bank as per the exigency of service and, thereafter, his services have been disengaged and keeping in view the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 no relief or reprieve can be given to the petitioner appellant. 2. Petitioner appellant is trying to contend before this Court that his case in question should be kept on different footing than the law, that has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and the reason that is being forwarded by the petitioner appellant before this Court is that petitioner appellant has worked for 832 days continuously and, in view of this, before disengagement he ought to have been provided opportunity of hearing and the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ought to have been adhered to. 3. Sri Shiv Nath Singh, Advocate, representing the concerned bank before this Court, on the other hand, has contended that as per the exigency of service engagement of petitioner appellant has been made and as the services were not at all required, services of petitioner appellant have been disengaged and as the engagement of petitioner appellant was on daily-wage basis none of his legal rights are infringed in any manner whatsoever. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation that is so emerging that without following any procedure known to law as a total stop gap arrangement on daily-wage basis on Rs. 18/- per day engagement of petitioner appellant has been made. This is true that the said engagement in question has been limited for a period of 89 days and, thereafter, said engagement has been extended from time to time and, thereafter, said engagement in question has not at all been extended and then at the said point of time petitioner appellant has been before this Court. This is true that the said engagement in question has been limited for a period of 89 days and, thereafter, said engagement has been extended from time to time and, thereafter, said engagement in question has not at all been extended and then at the said point of time petitioner appellant has been before this Court. The terms and conditions of the engagement in question are clear and categorical that it is a time bound engagement and after the said period in question would come to an end the engagement in question, ipso facto, come to an end. Once such is the terms and conditions of the engagement in question and as the tenure of the petitioner appellant has not at all extended, then inevitable conclusion is that petitioner appellant's engagement come to an end and in this backdrop once the petitioner appellant has been before this Court claiming that he ought to have been retained in service, then in our considered opinion also petitioner appellant is labouring under total wrong impression. The rights of a daily-wager and their right to continue has been explained in-extenso by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), in view of this, the learned Single Judge is not at all in error at the point of time when he has proceeded to non-suit the claim of petitioner appellant. Special appeal sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.