STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BHIKHABHAI NARHARSINH MAHIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner State Bank of India has sought for quashing and setting aside the award and order dated 18th April, 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Vadodara in Reference (Central II) No. 7 of 1991 and published on 25th May, 1994.

(2.) The petitioner appointed the respondent no. 1 as Farrash cum Messanger purely on temporary basis and he served for about 203 days from 30th November, 1981 to 31st March, 1983. The respondent was called for an interview and it was found that the respondent was over-aged at the time of initial appointment and so he could not be considered for permanent appointment in the bank in view of the Rule/policy of the petitioner bank. The bipartite agreement was signed between All India State Bank Staff Federation and the Bank on 17.11.1987 laying down terms and conditions subject to which temporary employees engaged by the bank were to be given chance for permanent absorption in the bank. The respondent vide his letter dated 5th April, 1988 raised an industrial dispute over his termination from service by the management of the State Bank of India, Vadodara with effect from 31st March, 1983. The Conciliation Officer reported on 1.5.91 about failure of the conciliation proceedings and so the Central Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Tribunal under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal (Central), Vadodara passed the award dated 18.4.94 in Refernce (Cetnral II) 7 of 1994. By the said Award, the petitioner bank has been directed to reinstate the respondent no.1 in regular service of the bank as a messanger with effect from 1st January, 1990 with back wages and with a direction to the bank to calculate and pay arrears of back wages within a period of three months from the date of publication of the award. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said Award of the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Vadodara, the petitioner bank has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) It is stated that the respondent no.1 worked for a period of 203 days from 30th October, 1981 to 31st March, 1983. The respondent no.1's employment automatically ceased by an efflux of time and on the expiry of the fixed period for which the appointment order was issued. The services of the respondent no. 1 were never terminated by the petitioner bank and the services came to an end automatically pursuant to the appointment letter and the respondent no.1 was appointed on purely temporary basis for a fixed and specific period. In the year 1985, the petitioner framed a policy to give an opportunity to the ex-temporary employees of the bank to those who had put in more than 90 days of service for being considered for permanent absorption of the bank. The respondent no.1 was also called for an interview on 7.11.85. At the relevant time, the eligibility criteria was for consideration of the ex-temporary employees of the bank for permanent absorption in the bank and it was subject to the condition that the age of ex-temporary employees at the time of initial appointment must be between 18 to 24 years of age. Though the respondent no.1 was called for an interview on 7.11.1985, it was subsequently found that he was over-aged on the initial date of appointment i.e. 30th November, 1981 and due to over-age, the respondent no.1 could not be considered for permanent absorption in the bank as per the terms of the policy framed by the petitioner bank. On 17.11.1987, a bipartite settlement was arrived at and entered in between State Bank Staff Federation and the petitioner bank whereby the ex-temporary employees of the bank who were within 18 to 26 years of age at the time of their initial employment in service subject to fulfilment of other condtiions prescribed for the eligibility for being considered for permanent absorption in the bank. The respondent no.1 raised an industrial dispute over his termination from service with effect from 31st March, 1983. Conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central-II), Ahmedabad. It was pointed out to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that the workman would not be eligible for being considered for permanent absorption in the bank in view of the relaxation in the age limits as laid down by bipartite settlement dated 17.11.87, the respondent no.1 was called for an interview on 20th November, 1989. By the bipartite settlement, only a chance was to be given to all ex-temporary employees for being considered for permanent absorption in the bank. But no guarantee or no commitment was given under the bipartite settlement that all the temporary employees who were given a chance for being considered would be positively permanently absorbed in the petitioner bank. The proceedings before Assistant Commissioner of Labour had failed on 5.1.1991. On the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred vide order dated 16.8.1991 the following issue for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.