- (1.) THE respondent Central Cooperative Bank, Udaipur, a society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, by an order dated 20.7.1998, employed the petitioner as a Class-IV Employee purely on temporary basis for a period of two months or till availability of the selected incumbent, whichever is earlier, with a pay scale of Rs.1905- 4660. THE term of service of the petitioner was subsequently extended under various orders, including the orders dated 7.10.1998, 29.12.1998, 1.4.1999, 2.7.1999. THE petitioner though was designated as a Class-IV employee, but his services were always utilised by the respondent Bank as a Driver. Under the order dated 13.11.1999 the Managing Director of the respondent Bank terminated the petitioner from service with immediate effect, however, at the same time as per the petitioner he was reemployed in capacity of a Driver through the Dynamic Detective Security Services, Udaipur (respondent No.3).
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the relationship of employer and workman existing between him and the respondent Bank was broken at the instance of the employer just to deprive him from the benefits flowing as a consequent to various legislations and that is nothing but, an unfair labour practice. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 as a matter of fact is a stranger and for all purposes the petitioner is an employee of the respondent Bank. A claim, thus, is made to declare the order dated 13.11.1999 illegal and further to continue the petitioner in service with regular pay in regular pay scale and other ancillary benefits. Per contra, as per the respondents the petitioner from very inception worked with the Bank through Dynamic Detective Security Services, Udaipur, therefore, no relationship of employer and workman was ever existing between the Bank and the petitioner. It is asserted by counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is yet working with the Bank purely on contract basis through a contractor. Heard counsel for the parties. To adjudicate the issue involved in this petition for writ, this Court is required to examine the nature of employment awarded to the petitioner at first instance and then continued by different orders. The order dated 20.7.1998 (Anx.1) is the order whereby the petitioner entered in the services of the Bank at first instance. This order neither refers that appointment was given to the petitioner through the respondent No.3 nor it mentions that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis. The order dated 20.7.1998, on the other hand, in quite unambiguous terms states that the appointment was accorded as per the decision of the Administrator of the Bank dated 20.7.1998. After completion of the period of two months the Managing Director again extended services of the petitioner for a term of three months by an order dated 7.10.1998 and in this order too no reference of the respondent No.3 or utilisation of the petitioner's services on contract basis was given. By an another order dated 29.12.1998 (Anx.3) the Managing Director further extended term of employment of the petitioner for a period of three months, and while doing so no reference of the respondent No.3 is given. This time too the appointment of the petitioner was made purely on adhoc basis for a period of three months or till availability of selected incumbents, whichever is earlier. The Managing Director under the orders dated 1.4.1999 and 2.7.1999 further extended the term of employment of the petitioner, but in these orders too no reference regarding employment of the petitioner through the respondent No.3 is made. From perusal of the orders aforesaid, it is apparent that the appointment to the petitioner was given by the respondent Bank at its own and the respondent No.3 was nowhere in picture. The respondent No.3 may be having some hidden understanding with the respondent Bank but the orders referred above nowhere disclose the same. Whatever right created in favour of the petitioner to work with the respondent Bank is flowing from the orders aforesaid, therefore, claim of the petitioner is required to be examined on basis of those documents only. The documents clearly establish a relationship of the employer and the workman between the petitioner and the respondent Bank. The respondent No.3, as a matter of fact is rightly termed by counsel for the petitioner as stranger in the matter. An important aspect of the case is that the petitioner was employed with the respondent Bank in regular pay scale and that was changed only after issuance of the order dated 13.11.1999 or to say only on reemployment after effecting termination under the order dated 13.11.1999. The respondent Bank after 13.11.1999 allowed a consolidated pay of Rs.2200/- instead of regular pay scale as prescribed under the orders of appointment. If the petitioner would have been employed through the contractor from the date of his initial appointment, then there was no need to change the mode of payment of the salary to him. The facts stated above clearly establish that the petitioner was employed as a Driver with the respondent Bank and that was not through the respondent No.3. The petitioner may be in temporary employment of the Bank, but certainly he was not working on contract basis or through any contractor. The termination of the petitioner's services under the order dated 13.11.1999 and his immediate reemployment through the respondent No.3 is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power. No employer can be permitted to adopt such a practice just to deprive a workman from getting regular pay scale and other benefits flowing from various labour welfare legislations. The order impugned thus is bad in eye of law. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order dated 13.11.1999 is quashed. The petitioner is declared a ?workman? employed with the respondent Bank and he is also declared entitled for getting regular pay scale as prescribed under the order Anx.1 dated 20.7.1998. The petitioner shall also be entitled for revision of pay as and when made. ;