BANK OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rohit Deo, Advocate for the workmen and Shri Jaiswal, Advocate for the employer-Bank.

(2.) Both these writ petitions challenge the award dated 26-8-1991 delivered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Bombay in Reference no. CGIT-2/40 of 1987 and 36 of 1988. The second reference is covering 15 workmen while the first reference is covering only one workman. By the impugned award, CGIT has ordered regularisation of these employees as sub- staff in the employment of Bank of India with effect from 30-6-1988. The 16 workmen dissatisfied with this date, have filed Writ Petition No. 1522 of 1992 contending that the said benefit ought to have been from 11-10-1985. The employer-Bank of India has, during the pendency of said reference, granted regularisation from 15-7-1989 or other dates to all these 16 workmen and it has filed writ Petition No. 85 of 1992 stating that date 30-6-1988 mentioned above in the award by the Tribunal is incorrect and said date ought to have been 15-7-1989 or such other dates. The parties are not disputing the factual background of the matter. The fact that all these 16 workmen put continuous service of 240 days in 12 months prior to the date 11-10-1985 as sought for by the workmen is not in dispute.

(3.) Shri Deo, Advocate for the workmen contends that before the CGIT, there are documents which show that workmen who have put in 240 days service are to be regularised if permanent vacancies exist. He states that date 30-6-1988 is awarded by the CGIT only in view of Minutes of Meeting held on 10-2-1988 between the representatives of federation of Bank of India Staff Unions and representatives of management of Bank of India. He contends that even stipulation therein does not warrant grant of one date i. e. 30-6-1988 uniformly to all workmen. He states that the process was directed to be completed by that date. He further argues that the workmen have worked in various Branches but nature of their work was like leave reserve, sub-staff i. e. Badli workmen who used to work in place of permanent sub-staff member who was not available. He contends that insofar as category of clerk and other higher categories in the employment of employer Bank are concerned a permanent complement is maintained for this purpose and that complement is styled as leave reserve. He states that whenever a permanent staff member or officer is not available, staff from said leave reserve category is provided to work in his place. He states that no such arrangement was available till 15-7-1989 insofar as workmen are concerned. Therefore, the substitutes were dispatched to various branches depending upon the absenteeism there. He states that in Bipartite Settlement and shastri Award, there is no category as Badli workmen and if Badli workmen are treated as forming part of temporary complement. Bipartite settlement confirm permanency upon them after completion of 240 days of service. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. ANZ G. Bank Employees Union and anr. reported at 1998 (II) CLR 194, to contend that availability of permanent vacancies for absorption of these 16 workmen were available on 11-10-1985 was the burden squarely placed on the shoulders of employer and the employer has failed to discharge the same. He further states that though during pendency of dispute, employer has granted permanency to these 16 workmen from dated 15-7-1989. There is no logic in selecting that date and it is in fact a negation of entitlement of these 16 workmen to claim permanency from 11-10-1985.