Vinod Kumar And ORS v. Punjab & Sind Bank And ORS
LPA No.442 of 2016 (O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH LPA No.442 of 2016 (O&M) Vinod Kumar and Ors.
......Appellants
Versus
Pb. & Sind Bank and Anr.
.....Respondents Date of decision: 21.08.2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present:
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIV SHARMA,J This letters patent appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 08.1.2016 passed by this Court in CWP No.22778 of 2015 vide which the claim of the appellants for regularization of their services has been rejected after interpreting letter dated 25.07.2005 (P.5). We have gone through the contents of letter dated 25.7.2005 (P.5).
It is evident from the letter (P.5) that only information was sought qua the workmen, who have completed 240 days in a block of 12 consequent months. There is no mention about regularization of the services of the workmen. The fact of the matter is that now the appellants have already rendered about 24 years of service. The act of the respondentBank to keep on employing workmen for years together amounts to unfair MANOJ KUMAR 2019.08.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA No.442 of 2016 (O&M) #2# labour practice. In normal circumstances, services of the appellants could have been regularized.
Consequently, present appeal is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the case of the appellants for regularization of their services on the basis of the Scheme/Policy framed by it or in the light of similarly situated employees having already been considered in this regard within a period of eight weeks from today. (RAJIV SHARMA) JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) JUDGE August 21, 2019 manoj Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2019.08.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document