Exploitation of labour by bank: Hyderabad High Court

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has found fault with the Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank neglecting certain casual employees during the recruitment and observed that it clearly amounts to exploitation of labour and adopting the principle of hire and fire which became a thing of the past when India became Independent.

Justice P. Naveen Rao was disposing a batch of petitions seeking directions to the bank to consider them for the post of office attendants (multipurpose) without sponsorship by the district employment exchange or District Sainik Welfare Board.

While terming the action of the bank authorities in temporarily engaging the services of private persons for office work when a regular employee goes on leave and then neglecting them as ‘exploitation of labour’, the judge directed the bank to evolve some scheme to grant weightage to such persons while filling the said vacancies.

The judge said: “Even though there is no regular assignment or continuous work, the person concerned is expected to be available to work as and when called and in that sense he cannot undertake any other job. Undertaking any other job may result in losing the opportunity, even though it may be intermittently given when a regular employee goes on leave.”

The judge said that the concept was “also misusing power to give false hope to people coming from lower strata of society and utilising them whenever and wherever required at their whims and fancies.”

The petitioners, all unemployed, claimed that they were working with the bank as messengers-cum-sweepers since 1993 and their services were utilised for 12 hours during festivals.  days.

Aggrieved with the bank restricting the consideration only to candidates sponsored by the concerned employment exchange and welfare board, they urged the court to issue directions to the authorities to regularise them to the said posts or any other suitable last grade post in preference to the freshers.

While denying the contention, the bank claimed that the petitioners were not entitled to seek regularisation as they were engaged as and when there was requirement and were paid daily wage.

It told the court that some contingent fund was provided with the branch manager for upkeep of the branch and by utilising this amount such engagement is made and branch manager does not issue appointment orders and no record is maintained.