Orissa High Court
Muktesh Munda & Others vs Punjab National Bank & …. Opposite … on 6 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C )
Nos.12819,1890,6788,6877,7057,7237,7239,7241,7479,9665,
14038,14039,14041,14042,14044,22724,22726 &
40542 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Article-226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India
..................
Muktesh Munda & Others Petitioners
....
-versus-
Punjab National Bank & .... Opposite Parties
Others
For Petitioner : M/s. B. Routray, Sr. Adv.
along with
Mr. J. Biswal, Adv.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. A.C. Swain, Adv.
(for Bank)
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 12.02.2026 and Date of Judgment:06.03.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Since the claim made in the present batch of Writ
Petitions are co-related to each other, all the matters
were heard analogously and disposed of by the present
common order.
// 2 //
2. While W.P.(C ) Nos.12819 of 2021, 14038 of 2021
to 14042 of 2021, 14044 of 2021, 22724 of 2021 and
22726 of 2021 have been filed challenging the rejection
of the Petitioners’ claim to get the benefit of
regularization, W.P(C) Nos.6788, 6877, 7057, 7237,
7239, 7241, 7479 and 9665 of 2021 have been filed by
the Petitioners challenging the action of the Bank in
issuing the Advertisement on different dates to fill up
the posts in which Petitioners are continuing. Similarly
W.P.(C ) Nos.1890 and 40542 of 2021 have been filed
seeking a direction on the Opp. party-Bank to regularize
the services of the Petitioners therein.
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that all the
Petitioners are working in different branches of Punjab
National Bank as Part Time Sweeper on daily wage basis
from different dates. It is contended that all the
Petitioners are continuing on daily wage basis as Part
Time Sweeper and all were so engaged, while United
Bank of India was functioning as a Government of India
undertaking. It is however contended that while so
continuing under the erstwhile United Bank of India, the
Page 2 of 28
// 3 //
said Bank along with Oriental Bank of Commerce
merged with Punjab National Bank in terms of the
Scheme of Amalgamation.
3.1. It is contended that after being amalgamated with
Punjab National Bank, General Secretary, All India
Punjab National Bank Employees Federation vide letter
dt.04.04.2020 under Annexure-2, requested the CEO,
Punjab National Bank-Opp. party No.1 to absorb the
temporary/adhoc employees (workmen) working in the
erstwhile United Bank of India and Oriental Bank of
Commerce in permanent service. However, on the face
of such request made by the Employees Federation,
when the Opp. Party-Bank issued various
Advertisements to fill up Group-D posts on regular
basis, the same was assailed by the Petitioners in
various Writ Petitions so indicated here-in-above. This
Court while issuing notice of the matter has also
protected the interest of the Petitioners herein.
3.2. It is also contended that as per letter
dt.05.01.2021, so issued under Annexure-4, the Bank is
in the process to fill up 3800 subordinate posts by way
Page 3 of 28
// 4 //
of Direct recruitment. It is contended that taking into
account the long continuance of the Petitioners as Part
Time Sweeper in different branches of the Opp. Party-
Bank, request made by the Employees Federation under
Annexure-2, availability of 3800 subordinate posts,
Petitioners approached this Court, seeking
regularization of their services against such available
3800 subordinate posts in W.P.(C ) No.1866 of 2021.
3.3. This Court vide order dt.27.01.2021 when
permitted the Petitioners herein to move the Opp. Party-
Bank, claiming the benefit of absorption in the regular
establishment, Petitioners raised their claim before the
General Manager of the Bank-Opp. party No.2.
However, vide the impugned order dt.22.03.2021, such
claim of the Petitioners was rejected on various
grounds inter alia (a)that the Part Time Sweepers are
never recruited by facing due recruitment process, (b)
no employee can make a claim for
regularization/absorption in the bank dehors the
bank’s Rules/guidelines, (c) such subordinate posts are
Page 4 of 28
// 5 //
to be filled up by calling from candidates from
Employment Exchange or by publishing advertisements.
3.4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners
contended that since Petitioners were all engaged as
Part Time Sweepers on daily wage basis in the erstwhile
United Bank of India on different dates, starting from
the year 2011 onwards and they are also continuing as
such after amalgamation of United Bank of India and
Oriental Bank of Commerce with Punjab National Bank
w.e.f 1.4.2020, the ground on which their claim for
regularization has been rejected is not sustainable in the
eye of law.
3.5. It is also contended that since 3800 Subordinate
posts are available and advertisement issued by the
Bank to fill up those posts are under challenge in the
present batch of Writ Petitions with Petitioners being
protected, Petitioners can very well be absorbed against
such available vacant Subordinate Posts. It is also
contended that in view of such long continuance of the
Petitioners as Part Time Sweepers on daily wage basis
starting from the year 2011 onwards, claim for
Page 5 of 28
// 6 //
regularization, which has been illegality rejected vide the
impugned order dt.22.03.2021 is no more sustainable,
in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 as well
as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and lastly in the case
of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others,
2026 INSC 99. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh and Bholanath has
held as follows:
3.6. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as
follows:-
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this case,
reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely
affects workers’ rights and job security. In the
private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to
an increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers
and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles
of fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment
practices. When public sector entities engage in
Page 6 of 28
// 7 //misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors
the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy
but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode
public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair
treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational
Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to
provide stable employment and to observe
obligations concerning employment stability and
social security. It emphasizes that enterprises
should assume a leading role in promoting
employment security, particularly in contexts where
job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term
unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in
the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7
serves as a pertinent example from the private
sector, illustrating the consequences of
misclassifying employees to circumvent
providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified
certain workers as independent contractors, thereby
denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact,
common-law employees and were entitled to the
same benefits as regular employees. The Court
noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees
or independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing
their profits. This judgment underscores the
principle that the nature of the work performed,
rather than the label assigned to the worker, should
determine employment status and the
corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the
judiciary’s role in rectifying such misclassifications
and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-
term obligations owed to employees. These practices
manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:
Page 7 of 28
// 8 //
Employees engaged for work that is essential,
recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are
often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when
their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees
often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example
in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers
on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when
their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not
only contravenes international labour standards but also
exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with international standardsPage 8 of 28
// 9 //and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,
thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour
practices in the country.”
3.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in
Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:-
“14. …… More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as
a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting
for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment.
15. ……. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump
the legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended
period.
18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to
initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing
the Appellant Workmen within six months from the
date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that
they have performed perennial municipal duties akin
to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the
Employer shall not impose educational or procedural
criteria retroactively if such requirements were never
applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly
situated regular employees in the past. To the extent
that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are
required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all
necessary administrative processes to ensure these
longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on
daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable
norms.”
3.8. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of
Jaggo and Shripal, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18,
19 & 20 has held as follows:
Page 9 of 28
// 10 //
“13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra)
and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a
convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and
to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work
is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further
contention that the appellants are not “full-time”
employees but continue only by virtue of interim
orders also does not advance their case. That interim
protection was granted precisely because of the long
history of engagement and the pendency of the
challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates
rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that
may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality
of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also
declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had
not specifically assailed the subsequent decision
dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that
the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999
refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh
decision during pendency, and the later rejection was
placed on record by the respondents. In such
circumstances, we believe that the High Court was
obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in
refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon
reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the
matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of
the High Court compounded the error by affirming the
dismissal without engaging with the principal
challenge or the intervening material. The approach
of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a
mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy”
while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in
the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial
need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations,
the impugned order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999
and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the
Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of
Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial
ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable
and stand quashed.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall
that the State (here referring to both the Union and
the State governments) is not a mere market
participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot
balance budgets on the backs of those who perform
the most basic and recurring public functions. Where
work recurs day after day and year after year, the
establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The
Page 10 of 28
// 11 //
long-term extraction of regular labour under
temporary labels corrodes confidence in public
administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place
in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides
fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on
lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-
hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The
State Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence,
why they prefer precarious engagement over
sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If
“constraint” is invoked, the record should show what
alternatives were considered, why similarly placed
workers were treated differently, and how the chosen
course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is an institutional discipline that
should inform every decision affecting those who
keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of
the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their
duties, and the material indicating vacancies and
comparator regularisations, we issue the following
directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with
effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High
Court directed a fresh recommendation by the
Commission and a fresh decision by the State on
sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose,
the State and the successor establishment (U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission) shall
create supernumerary posts in the corresponding
cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any
caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each
appellant shall be placed at not less than the
minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the
appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent
increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For
seniority and promotion, service shall count from the
date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference
between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at
the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from
time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for
the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of
regularization /retirement/death, as the case may
Page 11 of 28
// 12 //be. Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall
be released within three months and if in default, the
unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6%
per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization with
effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause
(ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other
terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal
dues shall be paid within three months of this
Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No.
5 and any other appellant who has died during
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record
shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the
date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues
recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three
months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education
Services Selection Commission or the prevalent
competent authority, shall file an affidavit of
compliance before this Court within four months of
this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case, orders of
this Court in such matters have been met with fresh
technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and
administrative drift which further prolongs the
insecurity for those who have already laboured for
years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned
that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties,
fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance .As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher
standard and therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for
lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions
in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations
is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious
method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity
for these workers. The operative scheme we have set
here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts,
full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and
a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a
pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of
grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.”
Page 12 of 28
// 13 //
3.9. It is contended that in the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath so cited
(supra), Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13.5 to 14 of the
judgment has held as follows:-
“13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious
and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily
discharged his duties over several years and has been
granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated
as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the
justification advanced by the respondents as the
obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to
fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether
their engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated
the practice adopted by States of engaging employees
under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or
“temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by
not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of
India, this Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and
stable employment, and evolved the test of examining
whether the duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of
the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v.
Union of India, this Court cautioned against a
mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to
deny regularization to temporary employees in the
absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi
(supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise
exploitative engagements continued for years without
undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further
clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between
appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely
“irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization
upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court
strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted
by States in their capacity as employers. The Court
criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing
recruitment as a means to evade regular employment
obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate
Page 13 of 28
// 14 //
precarious working conditions while circumventing fair
and lawful engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral
part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State
continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the
system, but form essential components thereof. The
equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires
that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from
arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State
affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and
contractual employees are guided by fairness and
reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s
contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the
appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional
protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’
services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant
to a due process of selection and having consistently
acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in
the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision,
abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge
behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is
manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of
the State to act as a model employer, and fails to
withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing
the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a
decade under the nomenclature of contractual
engagement and thereafter denying them consideration
for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or
passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to
waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual
stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from
constitutional scrutiny.
Page 14 of 28
// 15 //
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on
contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi
(supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-
serving employees in a manner inconsistent with
fairness, dignity and constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all
the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they
were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled
to all consequential service benefits accruing from the
date of this judgment.”
4. Mr. Anand Chandra Swain, learned counsel
appearing for the Opp.Party-Bank on the other hand
made his submission basing on the stand taken in the
counter affidavit so filed.
4.1. First of all, it is contended that Petitioners are
engaged on temporary basis with stop-gap arrangement
and each case is a separate one with distinct facts and
circumstances and a joint Writ Petition is not
maintainable.
4.2. It is also contended that the Writ Petitions are not
maintainable as the Petitioners since are claiming to be
workman under the Bank, they have to approach the
Labour Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is not maintainable.
Page 15 of 28
// 16 //
4.3. It is further contended that since all the Petitioners
are continuing as Part Time Sweepers intermittently as
per requirement and there is no continuity of service,
they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of
regularization. It is also contended that since the
Petitioners are all engaged as Part Time Sweepers
without following due recruitment process, they are also
not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of
regularization, which has been rightly rejected vide the
impugned order dt.22.03.2021.
4.4. Not only that, on a similar issue, this Court in
W.P.(C) No.26264 of 2021 vide order under Annexure-C/1
held that appropriate forum is the Labour Forum, where
grievance of the Petitioners has to be made. Since without
availing the alternative remedy of approaching Labour
Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, the present Writ
Petitions have been filed, the same are not entertainable.
4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. party-
Bank made further submissions contending that all the
Petitioners since are continuing because of the interim
order passed in the connected Writ Petitions, wherein
Page 16 of 28
// 17 //
challenge has been made to the Advertisements issued
by the Bank on different dates to fill up the posts of
Subordinate Staff by way of Direct recruitment, their
claim is also not covered by the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi & Others, 2006
(4) SCC 1.
4.6. With regard to the alternate remedy available to
the Petitioners and accordingly the Writ Petitions are not
maintainable, reliance was placed to the decisions of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following Cases:
1. A.P. Foods V. S. Samuel & Others,
(2006) 5 SCC 469.
2. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Vs. U.P.
Rajya Setu Nigam, (2004) 4 SCC 268
3. In City and Industrial Development
Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir
Bhiwandiwala & Others (2009) 1 SCC
168.
4.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Samuel in
paragraph-3,4,5,6,7 & 8 has held as follows:
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on
a combined reading of Sections 20, 22 and 32(v)(c) of the
Act, the inevitable conclusion is that the writ petition
should not have been entertained. Further, Section 22
clearly stipulates that the dispute raised is an industrial
Page 17 of 28
// 18 //dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
“the ID Act“). Since disputed questions of fact were
involved, the writ petition should not have been
entertained.
4. In response, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-
respondents submitted that in view of the established
factual position, the High Court was justified in
entertaining the writ petition and deciding in favour of the
writ petitioners.
5. Sections 20, 22 and 32(v)(c) read as follows:
“20. Application of Act to establishments in public
sector in certain cases.–(1) If in any accounting year an
establishment in public sector sells any goods produced or
manufactured by it or renders any services, in competition
with an establishment in private sector, and the income
from such sale or services or both is not less than twenty
per cent of the gross income of the establishment in public
sector for that year, then, the provisions of this Act shall
apply in relation to such establishment in public sector as
they apply in relation to a like establishment in private
sector.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1),
nothing in this Act shall apply to the employees employed
by any establishment in public sector.
***
22. Reference of disputes under the Act.–Where any
dispute arises between an employer and his employees
with respect to the bonus payable under this Act or with
respect to the application of this Act to an establishment in
public sector, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an
industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or of any corresponding
law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial
disputes in force in a State and the provisions of that Act
or, as the case may be, such law, shall, save as otherwise
expressly provided, apply accordingly.
***
32. Act not to apply to certain classes of employees.–
***
***
(v) employees employed by–
***
(c) institutions (including hospitals, chambers of
commerce and social welfare institutions) established not
for purposes of profit;”
6. In a catena of decisions it has been held that a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
should not be entertained when the statutory remedy isPage 18 of 28
// 19 //available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances
are made out.
7. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu
Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh [(2004) 4 SCC 268 : 2004
SCC (L&S) 637] it was held that when the dispute relates
to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute
and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the
statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general
view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very
strong case is made out for making a departure. The
person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the
process as provided under the statute. To the same effect
are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar
Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L&S)
70] , Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 :
1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] , Chandrakant
Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad [(2002)
2 SCC 542 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 317] and Scooters
India v. Vijai E.V. Eldred [(1998) 6 SCC 549 : 1998 SCC
(L&S) 1611] .
8. In Rajasthan SRTC case [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995
SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] it was observed as
follows : (SCC pp. 91-92, para 28)
“[A] speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for
resolution of disputes arising between workmen and their
employers. The idea has been to ensure that the workmen
do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil courts with their
layers upon layers of appeals and revisions and the
elaborate procedural laws, which the workmen can ill
afford. The procedures followed by civil courts, it was
thought, would not facilitate a prompt and effective
disposal of these disputes. As against this, the courts and
tribunals created by the Industrial Disputes Act are not
shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award
subject to any appeals or revisions. Because of their
informality, the workmen and their representatives can
themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums
are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and
appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in
many cases. They can make and remake the contracts,
settlements, wage structures and what not. Their awards
are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies
subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore,
always in the interest of the workmen that disputes
concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by
the Act and not in a civil court. That is the entire policy
underlying the vast array of enactments concerning
workmen. This legislative policy and intendment shouldPage 19 of 28
// 20 //necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these
enactments and the disputes arising under them.”
4.8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Bridge
Corporation in paragraph-11 & 12 has held as follows:
11.We are of the firm opinion that the High Court erred in
entertaining the writ petition of the respondent-Union at
all. The dispute was an industrial dispute both within the
meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well the
UPIDA, 1947. The rights and obligations sought to be
enforced by the respondent-Union in the writ petition are
those created by the Industrial Disputes Act. In The
Premier Automobiles Ltd. V. Kemlekar Shantaram
Wadke 1976 (1) SCC 496, it was held that when the
dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an
obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy
available to the claimant is to get adjudication under the
Act. This was because the Industrial Disputes Act was
made to provide ” a speedy, inexpensive and effective
forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen
and their employers. The idea has been to ensure that
the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil
courts with their layers upon layers of appeals and
revisions and the elaborate procedural laws, which the
workmen can ill afford. The procedure followed by civil
courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a prompt and
effective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the
courts and tribunals created by the Industrial Disputes
Act are not shackled by these procedural laws nor is their
award subject to any appeals or revisions. Because of
their informality, the workmen and their representatives
can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These
forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think
just and appropriate. They can even substitute the
punishment in many cases. They can make and re-make
the contracts, settlement, wage structures and what not.
Their awards are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 32, but they are extraordinary
remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is,
therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that
disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums
created by the Act and not in a civil court. That is the
entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments
concerning workmen. This legislative policy and
intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in
interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising
under them”.
Page 20 of 28
// 21 //
12. Although these observations were made in the
context of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain
the proceedings relating to an industrial dispute and may
not be read as a limitation on the Court’s powers
under Article 226, nevertheless it would need a very
strong case indeed for the High Court to deviate from the
principle that where a specific remedy is given by the
statute, the person who insists upon such remedy can
avail of the process as provided in that statute and in no
other manner.
4.9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dosa Anadesh
Bhivandiwala in paragraph-29 & 30 has held as
follows:
29. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the
relevant facts and circumstances into consideration
and decide for itself even in the absence of proper
affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as
to whether any case at all is made out requiring its
interference on the basis of the material made
available on record. There is nothing like issuing an
ex parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a
public law remedy. Further, while considering the
validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will
not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the
State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any
case as such is made out by a person invoking its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any
complex and disputed questions of facts and
whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective
remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of
unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by
any valid law; and host of other factors.
The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may
direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case
Page 21 of 28
// 22 //
may be to file proper affidavits placing all the
relevant facts truly and accurately for the
consideration of the Court and particularly in cases
where public revenue and public interest are
involved. Such directions are always required to be
complied with by the State. No relief could be
granted in a public law remedy as a matter of
course only on the ground that the State did not file
its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition.
Further, empty and self-defeating affidavits or
statements of Government spokesmen by
themselves do not form basis to grant any relief to a
person in a public law remedy to which he is not
otherwise entitled to in law.
4.10. It is also contended that since Petitioners
were never appointed against sanctioned posts by facing
due recruitment process and engagement of the
Petitioners is purely casual, intermittent and stop gap
depending on exigency, such engagement are not
irregular appointments, but completely illegal
appointment.
4.11. Therefore, in view of the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi so cited
supra, such illegal appointees are not eligible and
entitled to continue nor they are eligible and entitled to
get the benefit of absorption in the regular
establishment. But, because of the interim order passed
by this Court, Petitioners are continuing It is
accordingly contended that Petitioners have to approach
Page 22 of 28
// 23 //
the Labour Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act
and the Writ Petition under Article 226 is not at all
maintainable.
5. To the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the Bank, learned Sr.Cousnel appearing
for the Petitioners made further submission contending
inter alia that in view of the recent decisions of the Apex
Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh &
Bholanath so cited supra, this Writ Petitions are very
much entertainable, which have been filed challenging
the rejection of the claim of the Petitioners for their
absorption in the regular post of Subordinate Staffs and
so also challenging the advertisements issued by the
Bank in filling the available 3800 nos. of Subordinate
posts by way of direct recruitment.
5.1. It is contended that only when without absorbing
the Petitioners, the Bank issued the advertisement to
fill-up the posts of Subordinate Staffs by way of direct
recruitment and challenge was made to such illegal
action of the Opp. Party-Bank, this court while issuing
notice of the matter, passed the interim order protecting
Page 23 of 28
// 24 //
the interest of the Petitioners only in 2021. Hence, it
cannot be said that Petitioners are continuing because
of the interim orders all through. It is accordingly
contended that this Court directs the Opp. Party-Bank
to absorb the Petitioners against the available posts of
Subordinate Staffs by quashing the rejection of their
claim.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considering the submission made, this
Court finds that all the Petitioners were engaged as Part
Time Sweeper on daily wage basis in the erstwhile
United Bank of India from the year 2011onwards. It is
not disputed that United Bank of India along with
Oriental Bank of Commerce merged with Punjab
National Bank w.e.f 1.4.2020. Even after such merger of
United Bank of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce
with Punjab National Bank w.e.f 01.04.2020, Petitioners
are continuing as Part Time Sweeper in different
branches of the Bank.
6.1. As found from the record, after such merger of the
Bank with Punjab National Bank, All India Punjab
Page 24 of 28
// 25 //
National Bank Employees Federation vide letter
dt.04.04.2020 under Annexure-2, requested the
management of the Bank to absorb such employees of
the erstwhile United Bank of India and Oriental Bank of
Commerce against permanent posts, available with the
Opp. Party-Bank.
6.2. It is found that on the face of such request made
by the Employees Federation and the continuance of the
Petitioner as Part Time Sweeper on daily wage basis
w.e.f the year 2011, when the Opp. Party-Bank instead
of absorbing the Petitioners, issued various
advertisements to fill up the posts of Subordinate Staff
by way of Direct recruitment, challenging such
advertisements, Petitioners have approached this Court
in various Writ Petitions, connected with the present
batch. This Court while issuing notice of the matter,
has protected the interest of the Petitioners.
6.3. Since it is not disputed that all the Petitioners are
continuing as Part Time Sweeper on daily wage basis on
different dates starting from the year 2011, this Court is
unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel
Page 25 of 28
// 26 //
appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank that Petitioners being
workmen, they have to approach the Labour Forum
under the Industrial Disputes Act.
6.4. Since it is not disputed that Petitioners are all
working on daily wage basis as Part Time Sweeper in
different branches of the Bank, it is the view of this
Court that the present Writ Petition challenging the
rejection of their claim to get the benefit of
regularization, vide the impugned communication
dt.22.03.2021, is very much maintainable before this
Court.
6.5. Since all the Petitioners engaged by the erstwhile
United Bank of India and as per the policy of
Amalgamation, the Opp. Party-Bank took over the assets
and liabilities of United Bank of India as well as Oriental
Bank of Commerce w.e.f 1.4.2020, it cannot be held that
there is no employer and employee relationship in
between the Petitioners and the Opp. party-Bank.
6.6. Since all the Petitioners are continuing as Part
Time Sweeper starting from the year 2011, this Court is
Page 26 of 28
// 27 //
also unable to accept the stand of the Opp. Party-Bank
that all the engagement of the Petitioners are illegal and
not irregular.
6.7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of
the view that the ground on which Petitioners’ claim for
regularization has been rejected vide the impugned
order dt.22.03.2021 and the action of the Opp. Party-
Bank in issuing the advertisements to fill-up the posts of
Subordinate Staffs by way of direct recruitment is not
sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing the
order, so far as rejection of the claim for regularization
is concerned, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 to
take a fresh decision on the Petitioners’ claim, taking
into account the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal,
Dharam Singh and Bholanath as cited supra within a
period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this
order.
6.8. In those cases where no such rejection is available,
this Court directs Opp. party-Bank to consider the
Petitioners’ claim therein to get the benefit of
regularization in the light of the judgment in case of
Page 27 of 28
// 28 //
Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh and Bholanath
within the aforesaid time period.
6.9. Till a decision is taken, interim order passed by
this Court, wherein challenge had been made to the
advertisements in question shall continue.
7. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly stand
disposed of with the aforesaid observation and
direction.
Photocopy of the order be placed in the
connected cases.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 6th March, 2026 /Sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authenticaiton of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 06-Mar-2026 19:00:04
Page 28 of 28