Management of UCO Bank vs Govt. of India and Another

S.C. Parija, J.—This writ appeal by the management of UCO Bank is directed against the Judgment dated 2.9.2005 passed by the Learned Single Judge in O.J.C. No. 6932 of 1995, confirming the Judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in I.D. Case No. 40 of 1991 (Central), excepting in respect of the three workmen at S1. Nos. 8,10 and 18, namely, G.P. Dash, Chandramani Prusty and C.C. Das and accordingly setting aside the award in respect of the said three workmen.

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(I.D. Act for short), referred the following points of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication:

Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in not regularizing the services of 25 workmen mentioned below is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled to?

The case of the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal was that they were engaged in different branches of the Bank in the State of Orissa as casual workmen against the permanent vacancies on daily wage of Rs. 8 to Rs. 10 and in spite of the fact that each of them worked for more than 240 days in several calendar years, they were not regularized in service. Apart from the workmen involved in this dispute, several other workers were also engaged in different branches of the Bank and therefore, their Association took up the cause and requested the management for regularizing their service and pay them the amount equal to the amount paid to their counter parts working in, the regular establishment. When the management did not take any action, a dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. The conciliation proceeding taken up by the Assistant Labour Commissioner failed and a failure report was submitted to the Central Government. The Central Government thereafter made a reference to the Tribunal, as detailed above, for adjudication.

The management of UCO Bank (Appellant) filed written statement before the Industrial Tribunal pleading therein that the concerned workmen are bound by the settlement arrived at on 12.10.1989 and the 25 workmen cannot raise the present dispute in view of the terms of settlement. According to the management-Bank, the concerned workmen who have not been regularized, did not come within the purview of agreed criteria "mentioned in the settlement and as such could not have been regularized in service. The said workmen were paid their wages as per the Minimum Wages Act and, therefore, they cannot have a grievance of non-payment of the wages paid to the regular employees working in said capacity. It was also contended in the written statement that out of 25 concerned workmen, two having been regularized, the rest 23 could not have been regularised from service. Out of twenty three, three were retrenched and rest 20 of the casual workers were allowed to continue because of an order of stay passed by this Court.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following Issues:

Is the reference maintainable?

Whether the alleged bi-partite settlement dated 12.10.89 is binding on the parties to the dispute?

Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in not regularizing the services of 25 workmen is justified?

To what relief, if any; the workmen are entitled to?

With reference to the Clause-7 of the bi-partite settlement (Ext. 1), the Tribunal came to hold that on a plain reading of the same, it appears that concerned casual workers who were not covered by the settlement can negotiate with the Bank for regularization of services or settlement of their disputes. In other words, a person, who is not covered by the settlement, cannot take advantage of clause-7 of the said settlement. The Tribunal further held that if the bi-partite settlement has not been properly implemented, the workmen has a forum to agitate the same and, the Tribunal being in seisin of the matter, it has jurisdiction to decide that issue.

Coming to the eligibility criteria prescribed in clause-2 of the bi- partite settlement (Ext. 1), the Tribunal came to find that one of the criteria was that the concerned casual workers should have worked for 240 days with or without interruption within a period of three years preceding the date of settlement, i.e., 12.10.1989. Thus, a casual worker who has been given casual employment for temporary period with extension from time to time, with effect from 12.10.1986, such a worker can be considered for regularization. The Tribunal, on the basis of materials on record, proceeded to hold that each of the workmen had worked for more than 240 days between 12.10.1986 to 12.10.1989. Further, the eligibility criteria relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute was that the casual worker should be above 18 years and below 26 years of age, on the date of his first engagement. So far as the term first engagement is concerned, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the same should be given a beneficial interpretation without prejudice to the interest of the Bank. The Tribunal further held that the spell of engagement given on or after 12.10.1986 should be computed as the commencement of the first appointment in view of the workmen had completed the age of 18 years by 12.10.1986, i.e. three years prior to the date of bi-partite settlement. Accordingly, the Tribunal came to hold that the applications for regularization of the concerned workmen were required to be considered and the same having been wrongly rejected, the management must make a fresh assessment of the eligibility criteria.

On the basis of such findings, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the casual workers who had attained the age of 18 years by 12.10.1986 are required to be regularized in service, if they fulfill the other condition sand those Who did not fulfill the age requirement, the management should consider their case for regularization in an equitable and sympathetic manner. So far as the reference with regard to workmen at S1. Nos. 8, 10 and 18, the Tribunal held that the order of retrenchment being illegal, the management to reinstate, them in service with back wages. Coming to the matter relating to equal pay for equal work, the Tribunal directed the management to honour the principles of equity and fair play and make payment of equal pay for equal work.

Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the management of UCO Bank moved this. Court in writ application vide O.J.C. No. 6932 of 1995. Learned Single Judge of this Court discussed in detail the findings of the Tribunal, both with regard to the maintainability of the reference as well as on merit and while upholding the Judgment and award of the Tribunal, has come to hold that the three workmen at 81. Nos. 8, 10 and 18 having been retrenched prior to the reference, their case did not come within the terms of the reference and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of retrenchment in respect of the said three workmen. Accordingly, Learned Single Judge while upholding the Judgment and award of the Tribunal, set aside the same in respect of the three workmen at SI. Nos. 8, 10 and 18, namely G.P. Dash, Chandramani Prusty and C.C. Das respectively.

Learned Counsel appearing for the management -Appellant submits that the Employees'' Association having entered into a bi-partite settlement dated 12.10.1989, no further dispute could have been raised by the said Association in respect of 25 workmen, as per the terms of the said settlement. It is further submitted that even though no cut-off date has been fixed in the said bipartite settlement entered into between the management and the Employees Association. The Tribunal misinterpreted the relevant clauses of the settlement and fixed a cut-off date.

Admittedly a bi-partite settlement was arrived at between the management of the Bank and the Employees'' Association dated 12:10.1989, the relevant clauses of which are quoted below:

Eligibility Criteria:

(a) Only persons who have been engaged as casual worker for full day''s work and who have been discharging any of the normal duties in the bank in the subordinate cadre as casual workers for a period of 240 days or more with or without interruption during the period of 3 years immediatery Preceding this settlement. However, those who have been engaged as water boy on early wage could not be eligible for being considered for absorption under this settlement.

(b) xx xx xx

(c) Age : Such casual worker should have satisfied the normal stipulation in the Bank regarding age namely, minimum 18 years, and maximum 26 years on the date of his first engagement as casual worker.

Pending Disputes: Any person eligible for absorption under this settlement shall withdraw any case pending before any Conciliation Officer, Labour Court, Tribunal or any other Court of law and his claim, if any, shall be deemed to have been settled in terms of this settlement. Upon any person applying for absorption in terms of this settlement shall be deemed to have accepted the benefits under this settlement in full satisfaction in respect of any pending dispute or claim. He shall not be eligible for any benefits beyond what is stipulated in this settlement.

Parties agree to discuss and resolve disputes pending as on date before any Conciliation Officer Labour Court, Tribunal or any other Court of law in respect of claims for appointment or wages by person or by union representing such persons based on their working in the Bank on casual basis if such persons are not covered under this settlement.

The said clause 2(a) of the bi-partite settlement provides that those casual workers, who have worked for period of 240 days or more with or without interruption during the period of three years immediately preceding the settlement, are entitled to be considered for regularization in their job. The Tribunal had observed that the term ''first engagement'' should be given a beneficial interpretation without prejudice to the interest of the Bank. The Tribunal found that between 1982 and 1986, the concerned 23 workmen were engaged and were below the age of 18 years on the date of their initial engagement as casual workers. The Tribunal further found the spell of engagement of the concerned workmen given on or after 12.10.1986, should be computed as the commencement of the first engagement and those who had completed 18 years of age by 12.1.0.1986, they should be regularized. The said findings of the Tribunal have been confirmed by the Learned Single Judge, which cannot be faulted by this Court in this appeal in exercise of its Appellate jurisdiction.

Coming to the maintainability of the reference, Learned Single Judge, while referring to Clauses 6 and 7 of the bi-partite settlement, has come to hold that those persons whose cases were considered for absorption, are bound to accept the terms of the settlement and those persons whose cases were not considered, the question of accepting the benefit under the said settlement does not arise. Accordingly, Learned Single Judge has held that the reference was maintainable before the Tribunal by recording valid and cogent reasons.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of K.C.P. Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and Others, and Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited Vs. Their Workmen, , which according, to our considered opinion, have no application to the facts of the present case.

Considering the findings of the Learned Single Judge as given in the impugned Judgment and the reasons assigned in support of the same, no impropriety or illegality can be said to have been committed by the Learned Single Judge, so as to warrant any interference in this appeal.

The Writ Appeal being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed.

V. Gopala Gowda, C.J.

I agree.