THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:26307 of 2005 & W.P.M.P.NO.14759 OF 2011. DATED:01.07.2011 BETWEEN: B.VENUGOPAL & OTHERS …PETITIONERS AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & OTHERS. …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:26307 of 2005 & W.P.M.P.NO.14759 OF 2011. ORDER: The writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings No:AGM (H) R.II/GR.IA/345, dated 21.6.2005 without considering the length of service rendered by them as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. W.P.M.P is filed seeking to expedite the hearing of the writ petition. Having regard to the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition coupled with the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2005 and the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered by this Court, this W.P.M.P is ordered and the writ petition is taken up for hearing. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners have also filed W.P.M.P.No:33809 of 2005 seeking to stay the further proceedings of oral termination orders going to be effect with effect from 1.1.2006 pending the writ petition. This Court by order dated 23.12.2005 while ordering rule nisi granted the following order: “Notice. A perusal of the communicated dated 5.9.2005 from the Chief Manager, 4th respondent discloses that the petitioners are working in various capacities for the periods ranging from 1991 to 1998 up to the date of communication. The need to continue them was also emphasized. The petitioners state that despite the same, they have been informed orally not to attend the office. Such a course, prima facie, cannot be countenanced. Hence, there shall be interim direction to continue the petitioners in existing posts, certified by the 4th respondent in his communication, dated 5.9.2005. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from passing written orders and communicating the same to the petitioners in accordance with law.” The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the services of the petitioners are being continued without any interruption and that because of the impugned proceedings dated 21.6.2005, the respondents have orally dispensed with the services of the petitioners and such an action is not just and proper and therefore, they are entitled for regularization of their services. In this regard, a detailed counter is filed by the respondents contending that the petitioners were never engaged on regular basis and they were not appointed by the Bank in any regular vacancy in the Bank and no appointment letter was issued to them or any employment has been offered to them. Casual/daily wages labourers are some times engaged to meet the exigencies and the petitioners were engaged by the Treasury Branch on daily wage basis as and when the work arose in the Branch due to various reasons. They were engaged on their personal request to the Branch Manager offering their services for that day and for rendering their service, they were paid as per the norms and understanding. Since they are not regular appointees, the question of termination of their services does not arise. In case of the daily wages, it is the settled legal position that the contract of employment commences in the morning of the day when he was engaged and ends in the evening. Further the daily wage workers are not entitled for any benefits that are available to the regular employees. In support of the contention that no daily wage worker is entitled for regularization of services, the respondents have relied upon the following judgments reported in: 1.SYNDICATE BANK & OTHERS VS. SARKAR PAUL & OTHERS ([1]) 2.ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR ([2]) 3.STATE OF UP VS. UP STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ([3]) On the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the relief sought for by the petitioners seeking to declare the impugned proceedings as illegal can be considered or not. The proceedings impugned herein is a circular containing the instructions to the officials of the Bank to the extent that the Bank cannot appoint/regularize the casual labour on any grounds. In view of the said circular, when the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with, they have approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition wherein this Court has granted the interim direction to continue the petitioners in service and the said interim order was made absolute and consequently, as on today, the petitioners are in service. The learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No:1821 of 2003 and 15279 of 2008, dated 10.2.2011, contends that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services. W.P.1821 of 2003 is filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in subordinate cadre as the action of respondents in keeping them on daily wage basis with effect from 1989 and 1995 respectively without regularization in spite of recommendations as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. W.P.1821 of 2003 and W.P.No:15279 of 2008 are disposed of by this Court as under: “Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, respondents are directed to look into the service particulars of the petitioners and the recommendations made by 3rd respondent earlier and also verify as to any of the juniors to the petitioners are regularized in the respondent-organisation and pass appropriate orders regularizing the services of the petitioners within a period of eight Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners.” In view of the nature of the relief that is sought for in the present writ petition, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services, cannot be countenanced. Basing on the proceedings impugned herein, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the services of the petitioners have been engaged due to the exigency at the instance of the local Branch Managers and therefore, the respondent- Bank is at liberty to terminate them orally. But, the said contention cannot be countenanced in view of the letter, dated 5.9.2005 issued by the Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Treasury Branch, Hyderabad, a relevant portion of which reads as under: “It would be very difficult to ensure smooth functionming of the Branch without sufficient sub staff strength and as such these seven persons (petitioners herein) are being continued to work on casual basis since a long. We will forward a detailed report in the matter soon.” Now, as on today, the petitioners are being continued in service in the respondent-Bank . At this stage, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services. In view of the nature of the relief that is sought for in the present writ petition, the aspect of regularization is a matter to be considered by the respondent-Bank in the event of making such a claim by the petitioners before it. However, the approach of the petitioners before this Court on the ground that they have been working for a considerable time and they were orally terminated on the instructions of the Head office without considering their length of service and without affording any opportunity to them, appears to be a bonafide one. The authorities are competent to take that a recourse by following a due process of law. But, such a procedure has not been adopted in the instant case. Therefore, such an action of the respondents terminating the petitioners orally, amounts to arbitrariness and illegal. In these facts and circumstances of the cases, I am of the view that the order impugned herein suffers from illegality and irregularity. Admittedly, the petitioners are being continued in their services. If for any reasons, the respondent-bank intends to take any action in the matter affecting the services of the petitioners, it is needless to observe that it is left open to them. But, the same shall be exercised in accordance with a due process of law. At the same time, in so far as the regularization of the services of the petitioners is concerned, in as much the said relief has not been sought for in the present writ petition, the same cannot be entertained in this limited scope of the writ petition. However, it is always open for the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities making such a request and in such an event, it is open for the respondent-Bank to consider the same in accordance with law. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Date:30.06.2011 Gurc. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:26307 of 2005 & W.P.M.P.NO.14759 OF 2011. DATED:01.07.2011 [1] AIR 1997 SC 3091 [2] 1997(2) SCC 1 [3] AIR 1994 SC 1654