J. R. CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THE contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Manager of the Bank of India, Sriganganagar Branch, marked Anx. 1, for preparation of the panel of work charge employees. He was called for interview and was selected by the Board constituted for the purpose and his name was included in the panel. THEreafter he has worked for more than 240 days in a year as a Badli workman and, therefore, his services which are sought to be terminated by the respondent cannot be done unless the provision of s. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act are complied with.
(2.) A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been claimed that the Budli Sepey is not a workman as per s. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit u/s 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also contended that the writ petition is pre-mature because the petitioner's service has not been terminated. The petitioner has come before this Court apprehending his termination and, therefore, he is entitled to no relief. I have considered the rival contention made at the Bar. It was contended by Mr. Vijay Mehta that a Badli work man is also a workman u/s 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this respect he drew my attention to the provisions of Shastri Award which is an undisputed award. Clause 20 Point 7 of the Award defined, temporary employee which means a workman who has been appointed for a limited period of an essentially temporary nature or who is employed temporarily as an additional workman in connection with the temporary increase in work of a permanent nature and includes a workman who is appointed in the temporary vacancy caused by the absence of a particular permanent workman. The contention of Mr. Mehta is that a new Branch of this Bank was opened in 25 Law and there he is working on the post of a Peon since June 1989 continuously and no body else is appointed on that post. It is a clear cut vacancy against which he is working and, therefore, he has come under the category of workman who is appointed temporarily on account of a temporary increase in work of a permanent nature. Even if it is held that he is a Badli and was employed as such from the panel then too he has worked for 240 days in absence of a particular permanent workman and, therefore, also he has to be taken as a temporary workman. In this respect he has drawn my attention to a Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Sarabhai Chemicals V. Subhash N. Pandya (1) wherein the learned Judge of the Division Bench of that Court have held that a Badli workman falls within the terms 'workman' keeping in view the provision of s. 2 (s) and s. 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. A similar view has also been taken by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Joseph V. The 'management of Gopal Textile Mills, Kovilpatti (2) wherein the learned Judge of the Division Bench have held that a Badli is a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and hence would be entitled to get lay-off compensation if he has completed 240 days. The contention of Mr. Kothari is that this man is not employed by the Bank on muster roll basis but he has been given work only as a Badli workman and thus he cannot be construed as a workman as such. I am unable to agree with Mr. Kothari. Actually if a person is employed as a temporary workman then too he will have to be considered as a workman as per the provisions of s. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in case he has worked for 240 days in a year, then his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provision of s. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) IT was contended by Mr. Kothari that although it is admitted that the petitioner has worked for 240 days but he has worked for that period in three different Branches and, therefore, that period should not be counted for s. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act. This plea has not been taken by the respondents in their return that working in three in three different Branches of the respondent Bank does not constitute a continuous working for 240 days under the same employer. Unless that plea is taken that contention cannot be examined at this stage. When it has been admitted that the petitioner has worked for 240 days then, it has to be held that he is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of s. 25f of the aforesaid Act. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held to be workman and it is further directed that his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of s. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. . ;