IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 27464 of 2006(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.K. SAJI, DRIVER-CUM-MESSENGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.SIBY MATHEW MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (I), ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA (ADB), KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. MR.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27464/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 12.8.97 SHOWING THE TEMPORARY SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 27.10.99 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.17(2)2000/D2 DT. 17.2.2000 FO THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORD DT. 30.8.99. OF SRI.P.K.GOPALAN. P5(a):- COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DT. 11.10.94 OF SRI.M.C.VARGHESE. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 22.6.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER INVOKING SEC. 25 OF THE I.D.ACT. P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 2.2.06 IN OP. NO.21022/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10.10.06 TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 16.10.06 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.27464/2006-T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as temporary Messenger-cum- Driver in the Kattappana Branch of the State Bank of India. He was initially appointed on 26/10/1987 on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. According to him, he was subjected to a driving test on 10/07/1989 for the purpose of permanent absorption. Pursuant to the steps taken to terminate the petitioner from service, an Industrial Dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki as per I.D.No.3/1999 in which an award was passed as Ext.P2. Going by the award, he was found eligible for reinstatement in service with back wages and all other benefits. By Ext.P4 he was directed to rejoin as temporary Messenger-cum-Driver. Later, disputes arose wherein the complaint raised was that the petitioner was not given full back wages etc. and finally, he submitted Ext.P6 representation. The said dispute was considered by this Court in O.P.No.21022/2000. Ext.P8 is the judgment therein, whereby the respondents were directed to make a fresh assessment of the factual situation taking note of Ext.P4. W.P.(C) No.27464/2006 -:2:- 2. The fresh assessment was done as per Exts.P9 and P10. The first respondent paid an amount of Rs.7,121/- as per cheque, being one month's wages in lieu of notice as required under clause (a) of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act and also a cheque for Rs.36,117/- being retrenchment compensation and a further amount of Rs.3,675/- towards wages. He was terminated from service also. These are under challenge in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the same are contradictory to the directions in Ext.P8 judgment. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim raised by the petitioner. It is pointed out that petitioner is not working with the second respondent after the service of Exts.P9 and P10. The temporary service of the petitioner for 10 years commencing from 1987 to 1997 were only of 655 days, which means that the petitioner was getting only about 65 days average engagement in one year. The engagement of the petitioner was purely casual and temporary in nature. Pursuant to Ext.P2 award he was reinstated and then he was sought to be retrenched by order dated 21/07/2000. He continued in service for a period of six years pursuant to the interim order passed in O.P.No.21022/2000. He was being paid wages also. 4. The respondents contended that there is no requirement of the Driver and there are no vacancies of Drivers or Messengers at Erattupetta or W.P.(C) No.27464/2006 -:3:- Thodupuzha. It is brought out that the claim of the petitioner is against the judgment of the Apex Court in Seccy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and others [(2006) 4 SCC (1)]. In the light of the above factual position, the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs by way of continuance in service as Messenger. He was having only a temporary engagement during intermittent periods and it is well settled that the same will not enable him to get any regularisation also. He was given due compensation consequent on retrenchment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are vacancies available and, therefore, the first respondent may be directed to consider him for a fresh appointment. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that now there are no recruitment to fill up any vacancies. 6. The right, if any, of the petitioner is to compete along with candidates under general category if any notification is issued by the bank to fill up any vacancies in accordance with his qualification. Without prejudice to the said right of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms