Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: In a recent judgment, the Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking termination of services of a daily wage employee at State Bank of India (SBI), Dinjan branch, alleging that there was no proper advertisement or selection process for his appointment. The single bench of Judge Michael Zotankoma ruled that SBI, as a state entity under Article 12 of the Constitution, is required to follow proper appointment procedures, including posting 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 reference to a job exchange. 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 ATM cleaning and other tasks such as cleaning the bank premises and serving as a courier.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
After the termination of his services on September 16, 2008, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Industrial Court in Guwahati claiming that his status as a daily wage worker qualified him as a laborer. He claimed that the termination of his services without prior notice is not valid according to Section 25-f of the Industrial Disputes Law, 1947, which requires prior notice or compensation for termination.
However, the High Court of Justice found no evidence that the petitioner is working against a permanent position following a proper advertisement or through a job exchange. Also, the petitioner was unable to prove that he worked more than 240 days within a 12-month period, a requirement to claim the protection of Article 25- F. Furthermore, he could not establish a regular job in the bank.
Also Read: Gauhti HC orders status report on pending cases involving MPs and Knesset members
The High Court reiterated that since SBI is a state entity, it must act according to the constitutional principles of Sections 14 and 16, which require a fair and transparent process for appointments. In this case, if the aforementioned procedure is not followed, the termination of the petitioner’s services will stand.
Therefore, the Supreme Court rejected the request.
