1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.138 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 624 OF 2006 (D) (Bhimraj s/o Yashwantrao Shelke ..vs.. State Bank of Indore, Nagpur and another) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri R.M. Pande, Counsel with Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Counsel for the appellant, Smt. R.D. Raskar, Counsel for respondent No.1. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED :- 23 rd JUNE, 2010 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04-01-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 624 of 2006 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the award dated 26-04-2005 delivered by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur in the reference case filed by the appellant, granting him an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and disposing of the reference in relation to his termination. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the appellant was similar to the case of one Shri Damodar Agare. He 2 further submits that Shri Damodar Agare had filed a petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 2377 of 1999 and it was decided on 12-06-2003. Damodar Agare was thereafter reinstated and given all the benefits by virtue of the order of this Court and the order of the Tribunal. He further submits that Shri Damodar Agare and the appellant were terminated together. In all respects, he submits, the case of Shri Damodar Agare and the appellant was similar and, therefore, he is also entitled for all the benefits those were given to Shri Damodar Agare. 4. We have perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and we find that similar contentions were urged before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 held thus ;- “6. It appears that Damodar and present petitioner were both working under Tarachand Safai Agency and doing miscellaneous work with Respondent No.1-Bank. The question argued before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2377 of 1999 was of existence of relationship of employer and workman between the parties and the appreciation thereof clearly shows that it was sought to be contended that Damodar Agare was not workman as his name did not figure anywhere in Bank records. This Court found that it was nobody's case that name of Damodar Agare figured anywhere and hence in the absence of his name in Bank records, 3 the inference of absence of relationship could not have been reached. The aspect of right to post or entitlement to relief of reinstatement was not pressed into service in that writ petition and was not required to be gone into at all. 7. The perusal of present award shows that the learned Member of CGIT has tried to find out whether the petitioner could be said to have entered the service of Bank. For that purpose, it has been noticed that he was not getting any salary from bank and he was being paid against the bills brought from Roli Xerox or Madhur Courier Services and after noticing these bills and this fact, the CGIT has also noticed the case of the petitioner that he was made payment through Tarachand Safai Agency and also considered the contention that such Safai Agency was created with ulterior motive. Thereafter it has also noticed the stand of employer that the petitioner was working as agent with New India Assurance Company and on regular basis with M/s. Bharat Gold Mine Limited. The evidence of Bank that there is no post of Miscellaneous Worker with it is also noted by CGIT. In these circumstances, in view of two certificates issued to him by Bank, it has been concluded that he was working with the Bank from 18-04-1995 and dismissed on 24- 02-1997 and in view of completion of 240 days, the relief of compensation has been given to him. 8. The entire exercise taken by CGIT clearly shows that the absence of legal relationship of employer and 4 workman was being considered by CGIT. In the case of Damodar Agare filed before the CGIT, Mumbai, the point did not arise for consideration. If the petitioner wanted relief of reinstatement in Bank service, it was essential for him to show that he entered the Bank service through proper procedure, it was essential for him to show public advertisement or open selection process and then he was selected for doing the job. That is not his case at all. In view of these facts, it is apparent that the judgment of learned Single Judge delivered at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2377 of 1999 cannot help the present petitioner in present matter.” 5. From perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our view, the appellant cannot claim parity and his claim has been rightly rejected for the reasons recorded in the order. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has considered the case in a proper perspective and therefore, the impugned order deserves no interference in this Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma 5