MGMT OF SYNDICATE BANK MUNICIPAL Vs. J MUTHUKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present appeal, the management of Syndicate Bank challenges the judgment by the learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by twenty respondents herein. In that writ petition, the respondents who were panelists in the panel maintained for temporary attenders challenged a circular dated August 4, 1988, whereby the management directed that the part-time sweepers may be entrusted temporarily with the duties of sub-staff members in the vacancies of regular stab-staff members arising on account of leave or absence subject to the condition that such sweeper should have atleast passed V Standard. It was then directed by the same circular that in case of the non-availability of the eligible part-time sweepers for temporary entrustment, the said employment should be offered to the empanelled candidates amongst the temporary attenders, again subject to the condition that the candidates, who had completed 240 days as temporary attenders as on February 3 (sic), 1984 should be given preference over the other empanelled candidates. The learned Judge has quashed this circular as unreasonable and in addition to it, it is directed that common seniority list should be prepared of the part-time sweepers and temporary attenders and when the occasion arises, the jobs should be offered as per the seniority in the list. It will be better to appreciate few facts in order to consider the controversy involved.

(2.) It is an admitted position that the Bank maintains a panel of the person who are called temporary attenders. It is also an admitted position that there are two panels of temporary attenders. Firstly consisting of those attenders who had completed 240 days of service as on December 31, 1989 and of the attenders who had exceeded the duty of 90 days but had not completed the duty of 240 days. It is also an admitted position that it is strictly understood in the management that such panelists, who had not completed 240 days of duties should not be allotted the duty, so that they could exceed 89 days of work meaning thereby the panelists in the second panel would be getting the employment for only 89 days in one year. It is further an admitted position that there is a completely different stream of workers who are called the permanent part time sweepers. They are in regular employment of the Bank though on part-time basis. It seems that while the employees who were the permanent part-time sweepers were members of the union the panelists like petitioners were not the members of the union. There was a settlement between the union and the management of the Bank, in pursuance of the union's demands that instead of offering temporary employment which occasioned from time to time to the panelists like the petitioners, who had not completed 240 days, the first preference should be given to such of the sweepers who had passed the V standard. The natural result of adjustment was that the sweepers in addition to their monthly salary would be earning more than his salary of a job as a temporary attender, as admittedly the pay structure in the case of temporary attenders is better. Thus the petitioners who are the panelists in the panel of workers who had not completed 240 days, would be likely to be side tracked due to the preference given to these sweepers and would be likely to lose their opportunity to be employed even for a short period in the Bank in the posts of temporary attenders. The precise challenge of the petitioners, who are panelists in the panel of workers who had not completed 240 days, say that this meant a total injustice against them and the circular which is the result probably of the understanding between the union and the Bank spelt a differential treatment in favour of the sweepers and discriminatory attitude against the panelists like the petitioners. In their affidavit, the petitioners point out that they expected to be panelists in the fond hope that some day they would be regularised on account of the permanent vacancies occurring in the cadre of temporary attenders, as that is the understanding on which they were empanelled. They also pointed out that they were working for a meagre period of 89 days a year for more than 6 to 7 years and had the necessary qualifications required for the post of temporary attender (sub-staff). In their affidavit they further contend that if they refuse to accept the work which was being given very sporadically to them, they would face the chances of being ousted from the panel as even that is admittedly a policy of the bank. They pointed out that they were not members of any union, as the Union enrolled only the regular employees like permanent part-time sweepers; but not unfortunate employees, who could serve only for about 89 days a year. They also pointed out while they themselves were through the Employment Exchange, the said sweepers were never routed through the Employment Exchange. They therefore pointed out that in asking the sweepers work in the place of the absent temporary attenders to the exclusion of the candidates, who were both qualified and ready to work as temporary attenders, management of the bank had committed a grave injustice.

(3.) Learned single Judge accepted these contentions and also accepted the case that such circular meant a total injustice to the empanelled candidates like the petitioners who were working for years together on the sporadic basis in the fond hope of getting the employment some day. Learned Judge held that the sweepers who were being preferred over the empanelled candidates like the petitioners were being offered a better deal causing invidious discrimination against the petitioners and therefore the said circular was quashed by the learned single Judge. Learned Single Judge went into the actual statistics and found that the petitioners were getting comparatively much less work than what they used to get earlier to this circular.