PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK Vs. SHEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN the termination of service of Clerks engaged on daily wages on completion of the particular work for which they were engaged in a Cooperative Bank be taken as 'retrenchment' justifying interference by the Labour Court? This is the main question that arises for decision in the present case.

(2.) THE 1st respondent herein was engaged by a Branch Manager of the petitioner -Bank (Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Thiruvananthapuram) for casual works relating to audit and finalisation of annual accounts on daily wages for the period from 16. 4. 1986 till 27. 6. 86 and from 16. 10. 1987 to 13. 3. 1989. The 2nd respondent worked likewise during the period from 16. 4. 1986 to 5. 7. 1986 and from 16. 10. 1987 to 11. 3. 1989. They were not allowed to work for further periods. Aggrieved by the denial of work, they approached the Labour Court, Kollam and as per Ext. P4 award passed in I. D. No. 90/90 the Manager's contentions were turned down and it was directed that the said respondents be reinstated without backwages; but with continuity in service.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no question of retrenchment in the instant case in so far as there was no regular appointment at all given to the said respondents. They were called in for a specific work which was to last for a certain period only and that too without recourse to mode of selection prescribed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules which governed such appointments. It is also pointed out that for giving appointment to any post in Cooperative Societies, the appointing authority is the Board of Directors and that the temporary work on daily wages that the respondents did was not based on any such resolution of the Board of Directors; but only at the instance of Managers who had to complete the particular clerical work within a time frame. The contention therefore is that there was neither any regular appointment nor retrenchment within the definition of the term as given in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the direction contained in the impugned order of the Labour Court would tantamount to appointment of persons unqualified to hold the post through the back door. It is also pointed out that when regular recruitment was notified earlier, these respondents applied for the post; but failed to get through in the selection process.