GUWAHATI: In a recent judgement, the Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a daily wage worker's services at the State Bank of India (SBI), Dinjan Branch, on the grounds that there was no proper advertisement or selection process for his appointment. The single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that SBI, as a State entity under Article 12 of the Constitution, is required to follow proper appointment procedures, including advertising vacancies and conducting a proper selection process.
The petitioner, who worked as a sweeper and occasionally performed other duties, was verbally appointed to his position without any formal advertisement or employment exchange referral. He was paid a daily wage of Rs. 50 initially, which was later increased to Rs. 60. He also received an additional Rs. 30 daily for cleaning an ATM and other tasks, such as cleaning the bank premises and serving as a messenger.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Following the termination of his services on September 16, 2008, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Industrial Tribunal in Guwahati, arguing that his status as a daily wage worker qualified him as a workman. He claimed that the termination of his services without prior notice was invalid under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires prior notice or compensation for termination.
However, the High Court found no evidence that the petitioner was engaged against a permanent vacancy following proper advertisement or through the employment exchange. The petitioner also failed to prove that he worked for more than 240 days within a 12-month period, a requirement to claim the protection of Section 25-F. Furthermore, he could not establish regular employment with the bank.
ALSO READ: Gauhati HC Orders Status Report On Pending Cases Involving MPs And MLAs
The High Court reiterated that as SBI is a state entity, it must follow the constitutional principles of Articles 14 and 16, which mandate a fair and transparent process for appointments. In this case, since no such procedure was followed, the termination of the petitioner's services was upheld.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
