(1.) THE 1st petitioner Laxman Vishnu Bhandari, is an employee of the 1st respondent Bank. The 2nd petitioner is the Trade Union of workers employed by the Bank. The 1st petitioner is a member of the 2nd petitioner Union. By a memorandum dated 14th April, 1970 the 1st petitioner was appointed on the staff of the 1st respondent Bank as a clerk at its Akluj Branch temporarily for a period of two months. The appointment was with effect from 20-4-1970. The appointment letter said that his appointment will automatically come to an end on the last day of the period mentioned there unless the name is extended by another memorandum in writing. Accordingly the 1st petitioner worked as a clerk with the 1st respondent bank from 20th April, 1970. He was continued in service in the said post even after the expiry of the period of two months. By an offer dated 12th September, 1970 the petitioner was appointed on the Banks staff as a clerk cum godown keeper. The appointment was initially for a period of six months, on probation. The petitioner was to be confirmed in service after the expiry of the probationary period if his work was found satisfactory. Clause 15 of the letter of offer stated that in case the petitioner accepted the offer he should join duties on 1-8-1970 at Akluj Branch Staff Division, Head Office, Poona 2. Since the letter of offer was of 12th September, 1970, it would have been absurd to ask the petitioner to join duties on 1 -8-1970, but for the fact that the petitioner was already in the service of the 1st respondent Bank and was already occupying the post in question. In other words, as a result of this offer, the petitioner was given a permanant appointment as from 1-8-1970. The petitioner was required to accept the offer. Accordingly he signed an agreement dated 17th September, 1970. Thereafter he has been confirmed in this post with effect from 1-1-1971.
(2.) UNDER bi-partite settlements of 19th October, 1966 arrived at between certain banking companies and their workmen to which the 1st respondent was also a party certain terms and conditions of service of Bank employees were settled. In the settlement there are certain terms which affect temporary employees. Paragraphs 20. 7 and 20. 8 of this settlement which effect temporary employees are as follows:
(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that in view of paragraph 20. 8 his service as a temporary employee must be counted as part of the probationary period for all purposes. In this connection the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 9th July, 1973 to the Assistant Divisional Manager of the 1st respondent requesting that since he had been appointed as a clerk at Akluj branch on 20-4-1970, and had been working continuously at the said branch without a break in service, he should have been confirmed in service on 1-10-1970. He submitted that the period of two months service as a temporary clerk should have been taken into account for the purposes of confirmation and increments. This contention has not been accepted by the 1st respondent bank. It seems that there are other workers also who were similarly situated as the 1st petitioner.