Case Details: United Commercial Bank vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 442 (HC-Jharkhand)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
-
Nipun Bakshi, Shubham Sinha & Sushawan Bhowmik, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
S. K. Laik, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, On a reference under section 10(1)(d), Industrial Tribunal found that workman had completed more than 240 days of work in a calendar year and was not being paid proper wages prescribed for casual workmen – Tribunal held demand for regularisation was justified and directed that he would be entitled to regularisation on permanent basis as and when permanent vacancy arose in bank, and further directed payment of wages as prescribed for casual workmen – Whether merely because workman had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year, same would not automatically entitle him for regularisation on permanent basis in absence of any available vacancy to which he could be regularised.
High Court Held
Held, yes – Whether direction that workman would be entitled for regularisation on permanent basis as and when permanent vacancy arose was beyond terms of reference, perverse and unsustainable – Held, yes – Whether while exercising jurisdiction under articles 226/227 of Constitution, Court could not direct creation of any post – Held, yes – Whether, however, direction to treat workman as casual workman and to pay wages as prescribed for casual workmen did not call for interference – Held, yes – Whether where no such norms existed in bank, workman would at least be entitled to minimum wages under law.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. [2025] 177 taxmann.com 556 (SC)/2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 (para 22) distinguished
- G.M. O.N.G.C., Shilchar v. O.N.G.C. Contractual Workers Union 2008 taxmann.com 11208 (SC)/2008 AIR SCW 3996 (para 25) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey [2006] 2 SCC 716 (para 6)
- Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. [2007] 2006 taxmann.com 3098 (SC) (para 6)
- G.M. O.N.G.C., Shilchar v. O.N.G.C. Contractual Workers Union 2008 taxmann.com 11208 (SC (para 8)
- Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. [2025] 177 taxmann.com 556 (SC) (para 9).
The post 240 Days’ Work Doesn’t Guarantee Regularisation | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
