STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. M RAJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted by Parliament to make provisions for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. The legislation is enacted to ensure social justice to both employers and employees and advance the progress of industry by bringing about the existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the two parties of industry.

(2.) The Supreme Court in the case of Gammon India Ltd. vs. Union of Indiahas pointed out the object and scope of the Industrial Disputes Act as follows: "The Act was passed to prevent the exploitation of contract labour and also to introduce better conditions of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition of contract labour. The underlying policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and practicable, and where it cannot be abolished altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working conditions of the contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provision of essential amenities. That is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of work and contemplates progressive abolition to the extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."

(3.) In these appeals, the factual matrix depicts that there were large numberof subordinate staff which constitute temporary employees/daily wage casual workers/empanelled workers as messengers, sweepers, water boys, watchman etc. under the appellants-Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank')- The Workmen-employees of the Bank were being appointed sometimes on casual basis on daily payment and sometimes on wage basis, but intermittently without continuity in service. It is stated that the respondents- petitioners having not been absorbed in suitable posts by the Bank in spite of their services rendered for a long time with unsecured tenure, they and similarly placed employees took up the matter with the Bank through All India State Bank of India Staff Federation to absorb them or regularise them in such posts. This resulted in entering into settlements with the Bank under Sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules (for short, the Act and the Rules). There are five such settlements between the Bank and the Federation dated 17-11-1987, 16-7-1988, 27-10-1988, 9-1-1988 and 30-7-1996. Under these settlements the vacancies arising upto December 1994 will be filled from 1989 panel on the basis of senority and thereafter the panel automatically gets lapsed, and therefore, the remaining candidates in the panel had no claim whatsoever for being considered for permanent appointments from the panel. The Bank and the Federation entered into Memo of Understanding (MOU) dated 22-7-1997, which finds place in the paper book at pages 216 to 217, and the rights of the existing temporary employees were crystallised in the settlements and there is no question therefore of any legitimate expectation or estoppel, for neither of these can be superior to or improve upon contractual rights specially those arising out of an industrial settlement. Therefore, it is contended that after the expiry of 31st March, 1997, the Bank having implemented the settlements by virtue of its terms, the panels have lapsed and the petitioners have no claim to be absorbed by appointment in the regular vacancies. It is contended that since the settlements between the parties have come into existence as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, they are binding on them and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek any right or relief against the terms and stipulations of the settlements and the reliefs claimed by them is opposed to the same, as such the writ petitions are not maintainable.