@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Arun Mishra, J.
These writ petitions (W.P. No. 2648/2000, Mukesh Namdeo v. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chhatarpur and another; W.P. No. 2649/2000, Kalyan Singh Yadav v. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chhatarpur and another; W.P. No. 4679/2000, Santosh Kumar Gangele v. Registrar-cum-Commissioner and another; W.P. No. 4682/2000, Virendra Kumar Tiwari and another v. Registrar-cum-Commissioner and another; W.P. No. 4748/2000, Haricharan Ahirwar v. Registrar-cum-Commissioner and another; W.P. No. 4685/2000, Registrar-cum-Commissioner and another) are decided by this common order.
Petitioner-Mukesh Namdeo in W.P. No. 2648/2000 was appointed on 29-8-1996 in District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chhatarpur on daily wages as Clerk-cum-Typist. Petitioner-Kalyan Singh Yadav in W.P. No. 2649/2000 was appointed on daily wages on 11-12-1996 as Driver. Petitioner-Santosh Kumar Gangele in W.P. No. 4679/2000 was appointed on 25-10-1996 as daily wages employee. In W.P. No. 4682/2000 petitioner No. 1 Virendra Kumar Tiwari was appointed on 7-4-1988 as contingent clerk and petitioner No. 2 Harcharan Kushwaha was also appointed on 9-5-1988 as contingent clerk. These petitioners were removed and were reinstated on 20-2-1997 after decision of the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, Co-operative Society pursuant to the agreement between the parties before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and were continuing in service. Petitioner-Haricharan Ahirwar in W.P. No. 4748/2000 was appointed on 25-10-1996 as daily wages employee. In W.P. No. 4685/2000, petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh Yadav was appointed as Clerk on 25-10-1996, No. 2 Smt. Vimla Sen was appointed as peon on 28-12-1989, No. 3 Shyamesh Bajpai was appointed as Clerk on 4-3-1992, No. 4 Smt. Padma Jain was appointed as Clerk on 16-7-1993, No. 5 Matadeen Yadav was appointed as Peon on 24-6-1995, No. 6 Sanjay Saxena was appointed as Clerk on 25-10-1996, No. 7 Paramlal Kori was appointed as Clerk on 25-10-1996, No. 8 Sitaram Kori was appointed as Clerk on 25-10-1996, No. 9 Vijay Singh Yadav was appointed as Clerk on 25-10-1996, No. 10 Pradeep Kumar Khare was appointed as Clerk on 25-10-1996, No. 11 Ghan-shyam Yadav was appointed as Clerk on 25-10-1996, No. 12 Dinesh Kumar Dheemar was appointed as Peon on 25-10-1996, No. 13 Nandlal Lohar was appointed as Peon on 25-10-1996, No. 14 Govinddas Yadav was appointed as Peon on 25-10-1996, No. 15 Nandlal Chadhar was appointed as Driver on 9-4-1997, No. 16 Abrar Ahmed was appointed as Clerk on 3-8-1998 and No. 17 Sobran Singh was appointed as Peon on 30-7-1998.
Registrar issued general order on 12-2-2000 (Annexure P-18) thereby all the District Central Co-operative Banks were directed to terminate the services of all daily wages employees otherwise action would be taken against the person responsible for these irregular appointments. The respondent-Bank objected to the Registrar''s General directives as there was scarcity of the persons to men the posts. However, the Registrar again issued letters to the Bank to terminate the services of the petitioners pursuant to which the impugned orders of termination were issued following the directives of the Registrar and one month notice was served terminating the services on the expiry of the period of one month. In W.P. No. 2648/2000 the order was issued on 11-4-2000 (Annexure P-l). In W.P. No. 2649/2000 order of termination was issued on 11-4-2000 (Annexure P-l) giving three months'' notice of termination of services of the petitioner. In W.P. No. 4679/2000 removal order is Annexure A-11 which was issued on 28-7-2000 terminating the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 14-8-2000. In W.P. No. 4682/2000 removal was ordered as per order Annexures A-19 & 20 by the Bank. The order was passed on 28-7-2000. he services were terminated w.e.f. 14-8-2000. In W.P. No. 4685/2000 the order of removal are Annexures A-11 to A-27. All orders were issued on 28-7-2000. Services were ordered to be dispensed with w.e.f. 14-8-2000 of seventeen petitioners. In W.P. No. 4748/2000 the order of removal is An-nexure A-11 which was issued on 28-7-2000. The services were ordered to be terminated w.e.f. 14-8-2000. The reason shown in the order is that all the daily wages employees who were employed after 31-12-1988 were to be removed pursuant to the decision taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 14-2-2000 and Registrar''s letter dated 24-6-2000.
The case of the petitioners is that they possess requisite qualifications to render the work which was being taken from them. Petitioners submit that there is scarcity of 38 clerks even after engaging the petitioners as clerk and peons. Still there is short-fall of the required strength. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chhatarpur took the steps to fill up 8 posts of Clerks, Applications were invited and they were submitted. No further exercise was undertaken for the reasons best known to the Bank. The case set-up by the petitioners in W.P. No. 4682/2000 and W.P. No. 4679/2000 is same. Letter was written by the Bank, Tikamgarh on 10-3-2000 (Annexure A-6) to the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, Co-operative Society that the petitioners were working within the sanctioned strength according to the staffing pattern. It was further stated that if the employees working in the Bank are removed then at least five branches of the Bank would have to be closed down immediately. Bank had recommended retention of daily wages employees who were working in the organization on the post of Clerk, Driver and Peon.
The stand of the Chhatarpur Bank in the return filed in W.P. No. 2648/2000 and W.P. No. 2649/2000 is that work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory. The wages were drawn from the establishment expenses. There is scarcity of clerk. Requirement of the services of the petitioners was admitted. However, the Bank had shown helplessness as it had to comply with the directions of the Registrar and in compliance orders of termination were issued. The stand is also taken as to availability of alternative remedy. The respondent No. 2 has also filed return in W.P. No. 2468/2000. The stand taken by the Registrar is the remedy of filing dispute u/s 55 (2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hence no interference may be made by this Court. There are rules framed under Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sewa Niyojan Tatha Unki Karya Sthiti Niyam, 1982. The appointments are to be made only after calling names from relevant Employment Exchange and after due advertisement and selection by Selection Committee. The instructions were issued rightly to remove all daily-wages employees as their appointments were not to be regularised. The Registrar has also not traversed in the return that the Bank required the services of the petitioners. Similar is the stand taken in the return filed in W.P. No. 2649/2000.
In the bunch of petitions relating to the Tikamgarh Bank. Plea of alternative remedy u/s 55 (2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is taken and the similar plea that appointments were not made in accordance with 1982 Rules. However, the fact was not denied in the return that the petitioners were working within the sanctioned strength as per staffing pattern and the Bank requires their services. Respondent No. 2 Tikamgarh Bank in its return admits that need was existing. The bank is running in loss. However, the fact was not denied that there is scarcity of employees and helplessness was shown as the direction of the Registrar was to be carried out.
This Court in W.P. No. 2649/2000 passed interim order on 3-5-2000 and directed continuance of the petitioner in service. In W.P. No. 2648/2000 the order was passed on 1-5-2000. In W.P. No. 4679/2000 the order was passed on 10-8-2000. In W.P. No. 4682/2000 order was passed on 10-8-2000. In W.P. No. 4685/2000 order was passed on 10-8-2000 and in W.P. No. 4748/2000 the order was passed on 16-8-2000 and it is not disputed that the petitioners are continuing to render their services pursuant to the interim order of stay and this fact is also not disputed that services of all the petitioners are required by the bank.
The fact situation obtainable in the instant case is that the petitioners are working on daily wages as Clerk/Driver/Peon from various dates, their services are required, work is available and it is the stand of Chhatarpur Bank that there is scarcity of 38 clerks even after the appointments of the petitioners pertaining to that bank and it is the case in the Tikamgarh Bank that petitioners are working within the staffing pattern and bank had written letter Annexure A-6 to the Registrar for continuance of petitioners and in case they are removed at least five branches would have to be closed down. However, as coercive action was threatened it appears that the Bank had unwillingly terminated the services of the petitioners in spite of the fact that it badly required the services.
It is not the case where posts are not available or there is no requirement of work. On the contrary, it is apparent from the return of Chhatarpur Bank and the letter of Tikamgarh Bank dated 10-3-2000 (Annexure A-6) that it required the services and its business was to be seriously jeopardised in case the petitioners working with the Bank were to be removed. Thus removal of daily wages employees could not be ordered when there was requirement of the services. They were working in sanctioned strength of the respondent-Bank. It appears that direction was issued to remove daily wage employees whose appointments were made after 31-12-1988. Such a blanket direction can not legally apply even where daily wages employees are working as per the requirement against the sanctioned posts and further where there is requirement of the services and without them work cannot be carried effectively. The removal from service in such situation can be said to be only arbitrary. It is admitted that there is requirement of service. It is not the case that petitioners are being substituted by regularly selected candidates as per the Recruitment Rules, 1982. Selection process was also proposed but was not carried out in Ghhatarpur Bank. In any case it is not the case of termination made to substitute the petitioners by regularly selected incumbent selected in accordance with rules. As a matter of fact pursuant to the advertisement issued by Chhatarpur Bank the petitioners of that bank had applied for regular appointment but that process was not completed and was kept in abeyance.
Work has been taken from the petitioners by the Bank for several years. Some of them submits that they have become over age by now and they are being paid on daily wage. As a matter of fact, in case petitioners were not to be regularised, regular selection should have been made in accordance with the rules and all the petitioners should have been allowed by relaxation of age if required to compete with the other incumbent but that process was also not resorted to by the respondent Banks.
In Ghaziabad Development Authority and others v. Sri Vikram Chaudhary and others, 1995 Labour & Industrial Cases 2474, the Supreme Court laid down that-
"what the learned Judge appears to have intended to lay down is that so long as the appellant has work on hand, the appellant has no power to terminate the contingent employees engaged on daily wages and that in the event the appellant needs to terminate their services the principle of last come first go should be followed and in the event of there being need for re-employment. Preference be given to the displaced respondents. The observation made by the learned Judge is consistent with the well-established principles of natural justice and equity."
In view of the Apex Court decision, it is held that when there is requirement of contingent employee, services of contingent employees cannot be dispensed with. In this case it is the case of the respondent-Bank that it badly required the services of the petitioner otherwise it is having shortage of the staff and Tikamgarh Bank would have to close down five branches in case the petitioners were removed. Resultantly the order of termination of the petitioners are set-aside. They are still working as per the interim order of this Court. The writ petitions are allowed. Costs on parties.
