High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shri Prakash Chand Guatam & Others v. The Regional Manager Central Bank Of India & Others - WRIT - A No. 14944 of 1997  RD-AH 6463 (9 April 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14944 Of 1997
Shri Prakash Chandra Gautam & Others
The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Agra & another
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been directed by the petitioners against the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar (respondent no. 2) in I. D. No. 96 of 1991 published in Government of India Notification dated 2.12.1996 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
It is disclosed from the record of the case that all the four petitioners were appointed on the post of Peon-Cum-Waterboy in the respondent-Bank on temporary basis in the years 1972 and 1973 vide their respective appointment letters and worked till 1975. It is alleged that though they were appointed till 29.6.1979 and were empanelled in the selection list, but the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Agra (respondent no. 1) appointed out-siders on the post of Peon-Cum-Waterboy whose names were not in the panel list in the years 1980, 1982 and 1992. The petitioners appear to have agitated the appointments of these out-siders and also made representations in this regard to the higher authorities of the respondent-Bank who assured the petitioners to take action but in vain.
It appears that the four petitioners along with four other workmen raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar for decision which was registered as I.D. No. 96 of 1991. The Tribunal/Labour Court by the impugned award dated 15.11.1996 has held: -
"10. As regards the claim of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Baboo Lal, I think that they made out a case. As mentioned earlier the name of Baboo Lal appears at Serial No. 53 and that of Ashok Kumar at Serial No. 55. It has been alleged that Brahmanand at Serial No. 59 and P.K. Chaturvedi at Serial No. 63 have been given employment by making departure of principle of giving employment to the persons whose name appear earlier than those of these candidates. This fact has not been specifically denied by the management in its written statement. Thus, under Order 8 Rule 5 C.P.C. it should be deemed to be admitted. Apart from this there is unrebutted affidavit of these two persons. Hence it is held that the management had committed breach of this wait list by giving employment to candidates appearing at Serial No. 59 and 63 after ignoring the claim of Ashok Kumar at Serial No. 55 and Baboo Lal at Serial No. 53. In this way there has been definite infringement of Article 14 of Constitution of India in providing employment. Consequently these two workmen will be entitled for employment.
11. Now the case of Ashok Kumar may be taken up. His case is that he was taken on 26.11.1984 as a sub-staff and worked upto 28.8.1985 for a period of 234 days. Thereafter his services were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. .................................
14. Now the case of two clerks may be taken up. In the claim statement Anoop Kumar Mehrotra has alleged that the concerned workman had worked from 15.6.1972 to 8.8.1975 in broken period as temporary clerk. He was given assurance that he will be regularized. Instead of regularizing him fresh hands were taken in service and he was not given any opportunity. Thus there has been breach of Sections 25-F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
15. The case of Rajendra Kumar is that he was given emplolyment from 16.6.1972 to 13.8.1975 in broken period as temporary clerk by the opposite party. While effecting retrenchment there has been breach of Sections 25-G & H of the I. D. Act. ................................................................
19. Ashok Kumar Mehrotra and Rajendra Kumar have given their statements in this Tribunal in which they have stated the facts as given in the claim statement. The management was given opportunity but they have not given evidence in rebuttal. In this way the evidence of both these workmen is unrebutted. I see no reason to disbelieve it. Accordingly their version is believed. I am of the opinion that according to their own pleading they have not completed more than 240 days in a calendar year as such they are not entitled for benefit of Section 25-F of I. D. Act. ......................................
22. Finally my award is that concerned workman Ramesh Chandra Verma is not entitled for any relief for want of prosecution. Mahesh Chandra Verma and Prakash Chandra Gautam will also not be entitled for any relief as their case has not been proved.
23. Similarly Ashok Kumar Sharma and Baboo Lal will be entitled for employment.
24. A.K.Mehrotra and Rajendra Kumar will also be entitled for reinstatement in service with back wages at the rate at which they were drawing at the time their respective retrenchment from the date of reference."
It may be mentioned that this writ petition was dismissed with regard to petitioner nos. 3 and 4 vide order dated 2.8.2002.
There appears no interim order in the petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has given different reliefs to different workmen on the same evidence adduced by the petitioners in the award in I. D. Case No. 96/91. Sri A.K.Mehrotra and Sri Rajendra Kumar whose names are alleged to have not been shown in the panel list have been reinstated in service with full back wages since the date of reference declaring their termination to be bad in law. In the case of another workman Sri Ashok Kumar, his termination has been held to have been made without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but no order for his reinstatement, appointment and back wages has been passed. It is further contended that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been granted no relief nor their termination from service upto 1975 have been considered by the Tribunal as bad in law without compliance of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
I have perused the impugned award. It appears that evidence was given by the parties in I. D. Case No. 96/91 in support of their respective case. The evidence on facts in respect of each of the workmen before the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal was different and the case of each of them has been considered by the Court below individually and category- wise, hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that different reliefs have been given by the Labour Court/Tribunal to the workmen on the same evidence has no force.
Admittedly the petitioners were temporary workmen. It is settled law that a temporary employee has no right to a permanent post. Admittedly they were not appointed on a permanent post in accordance with recruitment rules. Even otherwise it is a settled law that a temporary employee has no legal right to continue in service even though a post or work may be available. Even if it is assumed that the petitioners were working against permanent posts they could not have been regularized in service except in accordance with rules for which they would have to apply before the appropriate authority or court.
Work can be taken from a daily wager, temporary workman or an ad hoc employee working on a permanent post but no permanent post can be filled up without following the prescribed procedure of recruitment. However, in the instant case the Tribunal/Labour Court has given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioners have no legal right for their permanent appointment and are not entitled for regularization.
The learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned award. No interference is required in the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court/Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.