STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two intra-court appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 12.10.2010, passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13529 of 2006 and C.W.J.C. No. 10612 of 2007 which were heard and disposed of as analogous. The writ petitions were filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), which were dismissed, hence, the intra-court appeal.

(2.) There are three private respondents, who are the same in both the appeals. They have appeared and have been heard.

(3.) It appears that the private respondents were hired by Darbhanga Branch of the Bank as part time worker as Sweepercum-Farash. Having worked for a considerable period, the three private respondents sought for regularization. This having been refused, industrial dispute was raised and reference was made. During pendency of the reference before the Industrial Tribunal, their services were stopped to be taken. This gave rise to a second reference with regard to validity of their termination. Both the industrial references were decided against the Bank. The Tribunal held that their termination being without notice the termination was bad, and, accordingly, directed reinstatement. In the other reference, the Tribunal held that they were not merely part time workers but were doing jobs for the benefit of the Bank throughout the day since 1991, and, as such, were liable to be regularised in service. Bank, thus, filed the two writ petitions challenging the two awards. So far as regularisation is concerned, the writ petition was substantially allowed and the regularisation was made depending upon certain facts to be enquired into again. Bank being aggrieved are challenging that it was not a case of regularisation at all. In the second writ petition learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the award of setting aside termination and directing reinstatement. Hence, the two appeals.