RADHA RAMAN SAMANTA versus BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

RADHA RAMAN SAMANTA versus BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Once the Division Bench had remanded the case to the single Judge without raising the issue of alternative remedy, that issue could not be revisited. The single Judge rightly examined undisputed facts and found that the appellant had rendered continuous service for over 240 days in a permanent vacancy, entitling him to absorption as a regular employee per the bipartite agreement. The Division Bench erred in reversing this decision on grounds of maintainability or non-applicability of the agreement. Therefore, the appellant is to be absorbed or compensated accordingly.

Parties
Appellant: Radha Raman Samanta; Respondents: Bank of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Division Bench of Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of the Division Bench set aside. Order of the single Judge affirmed with modification.
Legal Topics
Writs Under Article 226, Absorption of Badli Workers, Alternative Remedy Under Industrial Disputes Act, Interpretation of Bipartite Agreement
Constitutional Law Labour Law Writs Under Article 226 Absorption of Badli Workers Alternative Remedy Under Industrial Disputes Act Interpretation of Bipartite Agreement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radha Raman Samanta

Appellant

Bank of India and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Division Bench of Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is a Badli worker entitled to absorption as a regular employee in the Bank of India
  2. 2 Whether writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable despite alternative remedy under Industrial Disputes Act

Ratio Decidendi

Once the Division Bench had remanded the case to the single Judge without raising the issue of alternative remedy, that issue could not be revisited. The single Judge rightly examined undisputed facts and found that the appellant had rendered continuous service for over 240 days in a permanent vacancy, entitling him to absorption as a regular employee per the bipartite agreement. The Division Bench erred in reversing this decision on grounds of maintainability or non-applicability of the agreement. Therefore, the appellant is to be absorbed or compensated accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the Division Bench set aside. Order of the single Judge affirmed with modification.

Orders

  • Bank to absorb the appellant in a vacant post or, if no vacancy, to compensate him as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme terms treating him as regularized from 1 January 1999 and retired as of the date of judgment.
  • Either benefit to be granted within two months from date of judgment.