Sh. Vidya Sagar and others vs Reserve Bank of India and others

A.L. Bahri, J.—Vidya Sagar and thirteen other Petitioners are working as Theka Mazdoors with the Reserve Back of India, Chandigarh branch. They were selected in October, 1983. Annexure P1 is one of the appointment letters relating to Gian Singh. Until regular appointment was made he was to report daily for work. The Petitioners continued working on daily wages for all the years i.e. working for more than 240 days in a calendar year. In March, 1987, the Petitioners were again asked to give their particluars to judge their eligibility. They were subjected to medical examination and called for interview on October 1, 1987. Apprehending that their names would be removed from the waiting list which was earlier prepared, they approached this Court with this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing the Respondents to regularise their services and not to fill up the vacancies afresh.

The stand of the Respondents in the written statement is that this writ petition is not competent as the Petitioner has raised industrial dispute which is pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh On merits, it was admitted that in 1983/1984 a waiting list was prepared of suitable candidates which included the names of the Petitioners. Some of the persons were absorbed against regular vacancies and some were employed on daily wages. The Petitioners were employed on daily wages but could not be absorbed on regular basis for want of vacancies. In 1987 fresh waiting list was prepared for appointment on regular vacancies as and when arise. Annexure R.1. is the waiting list. The first four candidates in the waiting list are already working in the Bank on regular posts in different cadres. The candidates at serial Nos. 1 and 2 are full time employees in Class IV cadre of Bank. They have worked for more than five years as full time employees in that cadre. As per procedure followed by the Bank, they could switch over to the cadre of Mazdoors and were thus given priority. The candidates at serial Nos. 3 and 4 were also regular employees though they were part time employees. They were in Respondents'' service for three years and were being posted as Mazdoors. It was denied that the Petitioners could claim regular appointment on the ground that they bad completed 240 days of service in the calendar year. Fresh candidates were interviewed alodg with the Petitioners and fresh waiting list was prepared. Such list was required to be prepared every year.

As to whether after serving more than 240 days in a calendar year Theka Mazdoor could get regular appointment, there is decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Piara Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1988 (4) S.L.R. 739. The relevant discussion is at page 763 and is as under:

The persons falling in group (III) are those, who come within the definition of workman under the 1947 Act. On completion of 240 days which shall be counted keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, , they would be entitled to benefits of all the provisions of Chapter V-A of the 1947 Act. and their services would not be dispensed with without following the procedure laid down in that chapter.

For the purposes of regularisation, what has been stated for the employees falling in Group II, would also be applicable to the employees falling in this group. On regulation, they would be entitled to the benefits of provisions of the 1947 Act as also the Service Rules, from the date of their initial appointments, as applicable to the departments concerned from time to time.

The matter of removal from waiting list of Tikka Mazdoor was also under consideration of the Supreme Court in H.D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others, and it was held that the same amounted to termination. With respect to the practice of the Reserve Bank to scrap such waiting list, in para No. 10 of the judgment it was observed as under:

We thought it necessary to refer to the factual details in the case only to show our concern at the manner in which the employer in this case, the Reserve Bank of India, who should set a model for other employers being a prestigious institution, behaved towards its employees. It must have been his helpless condition and object poverty that forced the Appellant to accept a job on Rs. 3 per day. Still see how he has been treated. We will not be far from truth if we say that the Bank has deliberately indulged in unhealthy labour practice by rotating employees like the Appellant to deny them benefits under the Industrial Law. It has disturbed us to find that the Appellant was denied job because he has become better qualified. Perhaps the Reserve Bank of India and its officers are not aware of the grave unemployment problem facing the youth of this country and also not aware of the fact that graduates, both boys and girls, sweep our roads and post graduates in hundreds, if not in thousands, apply for the posts of peons. It has been our sad experience to find employers trying to stifle the efforts of employees in their legitimate claims seeking benefits under the Industrial Law by tiring them out in adjudication proceedings raising technical and hyper-technical pleas, industrial adjudication in bona fide claims have been dragged on by employers for years together on such pleas. It would always be desireable for employers to meet the case of the employees squarely on merits and get them adjudicated quickly. This would help industrial peace. It is too late in the day for this Court to alert the employers that their attempt should be to evolve a contented labour. We do not forget at the same time the fact that it is necessary for the labour also to reciprocate to prevent industrial unrest. In this case, for example, the Bank should have treated the Appellant as a regular band in List II. Instead, the Bank has, by adopting dubious methods invited from us, remarks which we would have normally avoided.

The only objection raised in the written statement was that the Petitioners could not simultaneously approach this Court as well as raise Industrial Dispute. Now the affidavit of Gian Singh, one of the Petitioners, has been filed stating therein that the reference before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, has been withdrawn on May 31, 1989. The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Tribunal could not grant regularisation of service of the Petitioners as was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. The Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court 1984 (2) S.L. 428 and hence they have approached this Court for the relief.

As held by the Supreme Court, removing the name of Tikka Mazdoor from the waiting list more so when he has served more than 240 days in a calendar year would amount to termination of his service and this is unfair labour practice In spite of judicial pronouncements referred to above, Respondent Reserve Bank of India is adopting the same procedure. Admittedly, the Petitioners have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year with the Respondent and they are entitled to regularisation in view of the Division Bench judgment referred to above. By preparing a fresh waiting list and placing four persons at the top has adversely affected the interest of the Petitioners on the existing vacancies or on the vacancies occurring. It is the Petitioners who are on the waiting list of 1983/1984 who to are to be made regular.

For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1000/-. A writ of mandamus be issued directed the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioners w.e.f. the dates of joining the Bank in the order of seniority in the waiting list prepared in 1983/1984.