BANK OF INDIA Vs. THEIR WORKERS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the Bank of India seeks to challenge the Award dated 7th Oct., 1992 holding that the action of the petitioner-Bank in not taking into account the temporary period of appointment from 4th Aug., 1974 to 2nd Oct., 1974 as a part of probationary period of the concerned workman in accordance with the provisions of para 20.8 of the bipartite settlement dated 19th Oct., 1966 was not just, proper and legal. Consequently, the petitioner-Bank has been directed to treat the said workman as having been posted on probation with effect from 4th Aug., 1974 and give him necessary consequential benefits.

(2.) The conduct of the petitioner-Bank as is evident from the facts mentioned below is rather strange and prima facie it is obvious that the Bank wants to take undue advantage of the helplessness of the workman who was employed as an ordinary agricultural clerk. Though the petitioner-Bank did not annex the relevant orders of appointment having a bearing on the issue, Shri Dharap for the first respondent workman has filed a short affidavit of the General Secretary of the Bank of India Workers' Organisation annexing all the relevant documents. Ex. 1 to the said affidavit of Anil Phoujdar, General Secretary, is the letter dated 15th Oct., 1973 from the Regional Manager, Maharashtra Region to the Area Manager, Kolhapur with reference to the proposed Branch to be opened at Rashivade in District Kolhapur. It deals with the question to sanction of the "Award Staff". We are concerned with the second post mentioned in para 2 namely Agricultural Clerk to which the concerned workman was appointed. Para 7 says that the Area Manager may proceed to appoint the award staff as sanctioned from the waiting list on merit. There is no controversy before me that the said workman appeared for the written test held by the Bank on 13th Dec., 1973 and having qualified in the said written test, he was called for an interview which was held on 22nd April 1974 and having been selected in the said interview, he was asked to undergo the medical examination which was conducted on 29th July, 1974.

(3.) After complying with all the above formalities, which usually precede a regular appointment in a substantive permanent post, the letter Ex. 2 dated 1st Aug., 1974 was issued saying that the said workman was appointed as an agricultural clerk, though on a temporary basis, with effect from 1st Aug., 1974 for a period of one month which was to expire on 31st Aug., 1974. 31st Aug., 1974 was Saturday and 1st Sept. 1974 was Sunday. Paras 4 and 5 of the said letter give the list of duties which the said workman was expected to perform. Not only that the duties are of a general nature and numerous but the least that can be said is that they cannot be termed as of an essentially temporary nature. They are undoubtedly the duties of the permanent nature of an agricultural clerk attached to a Bank in the rural area. The concluding portion of the said appointment letter dated 1st Aug., 1974 says that the said workman will be selected for the permanent post in the Bank provided he qualified in the written test and subsequent interview on merits and was medically found fit by the Bank's doctor.