Patna High Court - Orders
State Bank Of India vs The Union Of India &Amp; Ors on 12 October, 2010
Author: V.N.Sinha
Bench: V.N.Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA.
C.W.J.C.No. 13529 of 2006.
STATE BANK OF INDIA, A BANKING COMPANY, CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955, HAVING ITS
CORPORATE OFFICE AT MUMBAI AND LOCAL HEAD OFFICE AT
WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA THROUGH DEVENDRA NATH
PURI, SON OF SURAJ NARAIN PURI, ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER (PERSONNEL & HRD), RESIDENT OF STATE BANK OF
INDIA, L.H.O., PATNA, P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN,
DISTRICT- PATNA :-------------------PETITIONER.
-VERSUS-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), BIHAR,
PATNA.
4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), BIHAR,
PATNA.
5. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES‟ UNION ASSOCIATION,
BIHAR, PATNA, 215, ASHOKA PLACE, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
6. RAMPRIT YADAV, S/O- SRI YOGENDRA YADAV, RESIDENT OF
BENTA CHAUK, P.O.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA.
7. RAJESH KUMAR RAM, S/O- SHRI LOTAN RAM, RESIDENT OF
LAXMI SAGAR, SAIDPUR, ANWAR CITY, DARBHANGA.
8. RATNESH PASWAN, S/O- LATE SHEOJEE PASWAN, RESIDENT
OF BALBHADRAPUR, NAVTOLIA, P.S. BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT-
DARBHANGA:------------RESPONDENTS.
-with-
C.W.J.C.NO. 10612 of 2007.
STATE BANK OF INDIA, A BANKING COMPANY, CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955, HAVING ITS
CORPORATE OFFICE AT MUMBAI AND LOCAL HEAD OFFICE AT
WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA THROUGH DEVENDRA NATH
PURI, SON OF SURAJ NARAIN PURI, ASSISTANT GENERAL
2
MANAGER (PERSONNEL & HRD), RESIDENT OF STATE BANK OF
INDIA, L.H.O., PATNA, P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN,
DISTRICT- PATNA :-------------------PETITIONER.
-VERSUS-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), BIHAR,
PATNA.
4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), BIHAR,
PATNA.
5. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES‟ UNION ASSOCIATION,
BIHAR, PATNA, 215, ASHOKA PLACE, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
6. RAMPRIT YADAV, S/O- SRI YOGENDRA YADAV, RESIDENT OF
BENTA CHAUK, P.O.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA.
7. RAJESH KUMAR RAM, S/O- SHRI LOTAN RAM, RESIDENT OF
LAXMI SAGAR, SAIDPUR, ANWAR CITY, DARBHANGA.
8. RATNESH PASWAN, S/O- LATE SHEOJEE PASWAN, RESIDENT
OF BALBHADRAPUR, NAVTOLIA, P.S. BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT-
DARBHANGA:------------RESPONDENTS.
============
For the Petitioner : M/S S.D. Sanjay & Akash Chaturvedi,
Advocates.
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Sahvind Kumar Sharma (C.G.C.) &
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, (C.G.).
For Respondent
nos. 6 to 8 : Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate.
====================
3
18. 12 -10-2010. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") against the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna dated 7th December, 2005, Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C.No. 13529 of 2006 and 30th December, 2006, Annexure-2 in C.W.J.C.No. 10612 of 2007 in Reference Case No. 28 (C), 12 (C) of 2003, whereunder the dispute raised on behalf of the workmen, Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, has been adjudicated in their favour directing the Bank not only to reinstate them as part time Sweeper-cum- Farash in the Darbhanga Branch of the Bank but also to regularize them with effect from January, 1992 with all benefits of Grade-IV employee including pay etc. Parties and the question raised in the two petitions being common, the two writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Facts which has given rise to the present dispute is that Darbhanga Branch of 4 the Bank was housed in a single storied Government premises, Dilip Kumar Ram served the Branch as part-time Sweeper. In January, 1991 the Branch was shifted to its own building at Laheriasarai Station Road having three floors, each consisting of approximately 72 sq.ft. carpet area which required the services of at least three full time Sweeper-cum-Farash. In January, 1991, the then Branch Manager of Laheriasarai Branch appointed respondent-workmen as part-time Sweeper-cum-Farash. Though, the respondent- workmen were appointed as part-time Sweeper- cum-Farash, they were required to serve the Branch between 8 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on all working days. From 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. they performed the duties of Sweeper-cum-Farash and thereafter as messengers performing the usual duties of the messenger till the closure of the Branch but were paid paltry daily-wage of Rs. 10/- from January, 1991 to December, 1998 and Rs. 12/- per day from January, 1999 to 4th 5 August, 2002. Respondent-workmen were also not allowed to mark their attendance in the Staff Attendance Register. Their attendance was marked by officers in a separate Demy-Book and as per the attendance marked in the Demy-book they were paid wages from the Petty Cash Register of the Branch. Respondent-workmen were also deployed in the Cash Department of the Branch for packing the currency notes for remittance to Reserve Bank of India and also for burning of soiled and mutilated notes of small denomination. Although, respondent-workmen discharged the duties of Sweeper-cum-Farash and messenger in the Darbhanga Branch of the Bank from January, 1991 but were not being paid the wage-scale and other benefits of the Sub-ordinate Cadre Employee, State Bank of India Employees‟ Union (Bihar State) (hereinafter referred to as the "Union"), raised industrial dispute praying, inter alia, for payment of wage-scale, admissible to the regular Sub-ordinate Cadre Employee serving the 6 Branch and the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the same under order dated 30.5.2002 for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna which was registered as Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003. During the pendency of the aforesaid Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003, the engagement of respondent-workmen was terminated by the Bank with effect from 5th August, 2002. The Union again raised industrial dispute before the Government of India asserting that termination of the engagement of the respondent-workmen by the Bank during the pendency of the earlier reference case is wholly unjustified. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour under order dated 18.7.2003 once again referred the subsequent dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna which was registered as Reference Case No. 28 (C) of 2003. Management of the Bank entered appearance in the two reference cases as also filed the written statement disputing the employer-employee 7 relationship between the Bank and the respondent-workmen. It was further stated that respondent-workmen may claim to have worked at Darbhanga Branch of the Bank, the Incharge of the Darbhanga Branch appointed them without the approval of the Chief General Manager of the Bank. The further case of the Bank is that Darbhanga Branch of the Bank shifted to its own building in January, 1991, when the Branch had one part-time permanent Sweeper who used to sweep and clean the Branch. As the permanent part-time Sweeper remained on leave without any information, he could not properly discharge his duties of cleaning the premises of the Bank. The premises used to be cleaned by the daily-wage earners who were being paid at the rate of per day for the hours they cleaned the premises of the Bank. The daily-rated Sweepers were never appointed by the Bank in any capacity. It was further pointed out in the written statement that as per the Staff Recruitment Rules, the vacancies 8 are to be notified and appointment to be made following the recruitment procedure, selected candidates are thereafter offered appointment. The daily-rated employees, whose dispute has been raised under the reference, no appointment procedure was ever adopted. The appointment of these three persons, in whatever capacity, was made with an ulterior motive to allow them entry in the Bank‟s employment through back door by some persons of the Branch who might have been interested in them. Such appointment, being illegal, is void ab initio for all purposes. It was also stated in the written statement that the Bank is already having one full time Sweeper, one half and still another part-time Sweeper on 3/4th of the pay. They are permanent incumbent of the Bank. If any question of regularization as full-time Sweeper in the Darbhanga Branch of the Bank would arise, the aforesaid part-time Sweepers will have their claim considered at the first instance. In any case, the question of regularization of these 9 three concerned persons can come only after regularization of service of those part-time Sweepers engaged by the Bank is granted. It was further stated in the written statement that even assuming that these three persons have worked in the Bank for longer time as daily/casual worker this does not confer any legal right to be appointed on regular basis or for regularization of their services. It has been further stated in the written statement that the then Branch Manager who engaged these persons as part-time Sweeper or Sweeper-cum-Farash never took any interview for selecting any person to work as additional Sweeper. It is further stated that he was not authorized to make appointment. It was also stated in the written statement that these persons were never engaged to work in the Darbhanga Branch from 8 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on any day. They were only provided work not by the Bank but by an employee of the Bank in his personal capacity. They worked only between 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. 10 The Bank has its own peon and, as such, there was no occasion for these persons to perform the duties of messenger. Further, it has been stated that the statement made on behalf of these three persons with regard to the rate of payment and days they worked are correct but as they were paid through Petty Cash Register, they were casual workers, had no right of reinstatement and regularization. In the light of the statements made in the written statement it was submitted by the Bank that there is no question of unfair labour practice prevailing in the Bank. In support of its case the Bank produced documentary evidence enumerated in paragraph-27 of the order dated 7th December, 2005 as also examined the Chief Manager of the Branch and the then Branch Manager who engaged the workmen as M.W.-1,2. The workmen also produced attendance-sheet showing their presence marked in the Branch for the month of June, 1996 to June, 1999 together with payment vouchers, W-1 series. The Tribunal 11 having considered the documentary evidence produced by the parties, as discussed in paragraph-33, concluded in paragraph-34 of the order that these three concerned persons have received payment for the service rendered by them in the capacity of Sweeper or Kuli from the Bank. In paragraph-35 of the said order the Tribunal considered the oral evidence of one of the workmen Rajesh Kumar Ram about the period, timing and the nature of the work discharged by the workmen. In paragraph-36 of the said order the Tribunal on the basis of the oral, documentary evidence concluded that the workmen appears to have established their case that they served the Branch for more than 240 days and their engagement was terminated by the Bank without any notice or payment of wages to them, as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In the said paragraph the Tribunal further concluded on the basis of attendance-sheet, Exhibit-W series and 12 the payment vouchers, Exhibit-W-1 series that these workmen have served the Branch and were paid from the Petty Cash Register of the Bank. Having recorded the aforesaid finding the Tribunal considered the submission of the workmen that the termination of their services was contrary to the provisions contained in Section 25F and 33 of the Act in paragraphs 38 and 39 of its order and relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari, reported in A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 2799 in paragraph-40 of its order directed the Bank in paragraph 41 of the order that action of the management of the Bank in terminating the services of the respondent- workmen with effect from 5th August, 2002, while their case for regularization was pending before the Tribunal, is highly unjustified and illegal, accordingly, directed their reinstatement in service of the Bank/Branch. Under order dated 30th December, 2006 passed in Reference Case 13 No. 12 (C) of 2003 the Tribunal concluded that the workmen having completed 240 days of their service as part-time Sweeper-cum-Farash in every calendar year since 1991, they have to be regularized in the service of the Bank and, accordingly, directed for their regularization.
3. Counsel for the petitioner-Bank has challenged both the Award dated 7th December, 2005, Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C.No. 13529 of 2006 and 30th December, 2006, Annexure-2 in C.W.J.C.No. 10612 of 2007 on various grounds, namely, that concerned respondents having been engaged by the officer of the Branch without the prior approval of the Chief General Manager, they are not the employees serving either the Bank or the Branch as the Branch Manager, who engaged them, had no authority to engage them and engagement rendered on the basis of the illegal engagement made by the officer serving the Branch will not entitle the person concerned to claim 14 reinstatement and regularization in the Bank. In this connection, learned counsel for the Bank further pointed out that even if respondent concerned have been paid from the Petty Cash Register of the Bank for the few hours of the engagement, such engagement will also not give them any right of reinstatement and regularization as the Tribunal has not recorded any finding about the hours during which the respondent-workmen served the Branch on different days of their engagement. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank further pointed out that engagement of the respondents concerned having been made without following the norms of advertisement and conducting selection process, such engagement, even though continued beyond 240 days in several calendar years, will not clothe the respondents concerned with any legal right to claim reinstatement and regularization as the respondents concerned are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2S of 15 the Act. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank relied on several judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank Vs. Prem Singh, reported in (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 597, paragraphs 7,8, M.P.Housing Board and another Vs. Manoj Shrivastava, reported in (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 702, paragraphs 8,10,12,15,20, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. and another Vs. S.C.Pandey, reported in (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 716, paragraphs 7,23, Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, paragraphs 46, 47,48, 49, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh and others, reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 207, paragraphs 12,14,17, 18, State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Prantiya Sinchai Avam Bandh Yogana Shramik Mahaparishad, reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 483, paragraph-5, Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust 16 Vs. Dinesh Kumar, reported in 2008(1) P.L.J.R.201(SC) paragraphs 3 and 7, Sanjay Kumar Tiwary & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2008(2) PLJR 265, Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others, reported in (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1, paragraph-50.
4. Counsel for the respondent-
workmen has opposed the submission of the counsel for the Bank and submitted that respondent-workmen were engaged by the Branch Manager of the Darbhanga Branch in January, 1991 when the Branch shifted to its own building so as to meet the exigencies of the Banking services and to mitigate the inconvenience of the customers coming to the Branch on paltry daily- wage of Rs. 10/- per day from January, 1991 to December, 1998 and at Rs. 12/- per day from January, 1999 to 4th August, 2002. Such payment was being made to the workmen from the Petty Cash Register of the Branch in lieu whereof the workmen were serving the Branch from 8 a.m. to 17 5.30 p.m. on all working days. Highlighting the aforesaid unfair labour practice by the Bank the Union raised industrial dispute before the Government of India, Ministry of Labour which was referred for adjudication by the Tribunal under reference dated 30th May, 2002 which was registered as Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003. During the pendency of the aforesaid Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003 the Bank proceeded to terminate the services of the respondent-workmen with effect from 5th August, 2002 without following the mandate of Section 25F as also in teeth of the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Act which restrain the employer from changing the service condition of the workman during the pendency of any proceeding before the Tribunal without the express permission in writing of the Tribunal. Learned counsel categorically submitted that before terminating the services of the respondent-workmen the Bank and the Branch neither complied the provisions 18 contained in Section 25F of the Act nor sought permission of the Tribunal to terminate the services of the respondent-workmen. He further pointed out with reference to the preamble and object of the Act as also the definition of the term „workman‟ given thereunder that any person employed in any industry is workman if he is not employed in a managerial, administrative, supervisory capacity and with reference to the said definition it is submitted that respondent- workmen having been engaged as Sweeper-cum- Farash, there should not be any difficulty in concluding that they were workmen serving the Branch and were covered by the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, according to learned counsel for the respondent-workmen termination of the services of the respondent-workmen has been rightly set aside by the Tribunal under Award dated 7th December, 2005 with direction to reinstate the workmen and this Court should not interfere with the same. With reference to the 19 findings recorded in the Award dated 30th December, 2006 passed in Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003, learned counsel for the respondent- workmen, however, conceded that the Tribunal while recording the finding that the three workmen completed 240 days of service as part- time Sweeper-cum-Farash in every calendar year since 1991 did not record any finding about the hours of work rendered by the workmen on the days of their engagement. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent- workmen relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., Appellant V. The Workmen, Respondent. And Vice versa. 1. Saurashtra Vidul Kamdar Sangh and 2. The Workmen of Kerala State Electricity Board, Interveners, reported in A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 948, paragraphs 9 and 10 to highlight the aims and object of the Act, on the judgment in the case of Calcutta Port Shramik Union Vs. The Calcutta River Transport 20 Association and others, reported in A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 2168, paragraphs 10,19,20 and submitted that while considering the challenge made to the Award passed by the Labour Court approach of the superior court should not be to pick-up holes in the Award unless it is found to be absurd. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others, reported in (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244, Constitution Bench, paragraphs 6,13 to 16 to submit that termination of the services of the workmen during the pendency of the earlier reference case is violative of Section 33 of the Act and reinstatement has to be made for ensuring compliance of Section 33 of the Act so as to relieve the employer of penal consequences provided under Section 33(1) of the Act. He further pointed out with reference to the recruitment rules of the Bank for the clerical and sub-ordinate cadre that appointment in the 21 clerical cadre is to be made after following the norms of advertisement and selection procedure but so far appointment in the non-messengerial position like Farash, Water-boy, Cash-Kuli etc. is concerned, may be made from the panel of the wait-listed candidates who have been engaged to serve the Branch/Bank in order to meet the exigencies of the Banking service, as was done in the case of the respondent-workmen who were engaged to serve the Branch when the Branch was shifted from the Government premises to its own accommodation which had three floors and required more number of Sweepers to sweep the floors for the convenience of the customers. With reference to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 556, learned counsel for the respondent-workmen further submitted that Constitution Bench judgment of 22 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) does not denude the Industrial and Labour Court of their statutory power to order permanency of the workers who have been victim of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item-10 of Schedule-V of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that Uma Devi (supra) is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 should not issue direction for absorption, regularization or granting permanency of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad-hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme.
5. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are workmen within the meaning of the Act and are entitled to raise dispute under the Act for adjudication by the Tribunal for grant of permanent status on non- 23 messengerial position by the Bank. Uma Devi (3) (supra) is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 should not issue directions for absorption, regularization or for grant of permanent status of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made on regular basis. Notwithstanding the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra) the Tribunal, Constituted under the Act, is not denuded of authority to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item No.10 of Schedule-V of the Act. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner-Bank on the other judgments referred to in Paragraph-3 appears to be misplaced in the light of my observations above. Now, I proceed to examine the contents of the two impugned Awards. It is evident from the Award dated 7th December, 2005, 24 Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C.No. 13529 of 2006 that services of the respondent-workmen was terminated by the Branch/Bank during the pendency of Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003 with effect from 5th August, 2002 without obtaining permission of the Tribunal where Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003 raised for granting the workers permanent status of non- messengerial position was pending, as such, there is no difficulty in concluding that termination of the services of the respondent-workmen is in teeth of Section 33 of the Act which restrain the employer from altering the service conditions of the employee to his detriment without obtaining the permission of the Tribunal where the dispute is pending. In the instant case, the services of the respondent-workmen having been terminated during the pendency of Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003 raised for granting permanent status on non-messengerial position without the permission of the Tribunal, such termination has been rightly 25 set aside by the tribunal with direction to the Bank/Branch to reinstate the respondent- workmen. I do not see any illegality in the Award dated 7th December, 2005, which is contained in Annexure-4 and impugned in C.W.J.C.No. 13529 of 2006, the said writ case is, accordingly, dismissed. Under Award dated 30th December, 2006, Annexure-2 in C.W.J.C.No. 10612 of 2007 the Tribunal has concluded that the respondent- workmen completed 240 days of their service as part-time Sweeper-cum-Farash in every calendar year since 1991 and having recorded such finding directed for their regularization in the service of the Bank as IVth Grade employee with effect from January, 1992. While recording the said finding the Tribunal, however, did not record any finding about the hours of work rendered by the respondent-workmen on the day(s) of their engagement. In the circumstances, without recording finding about the hours of work rendered by the casual worker on the day(s) of 26 engagement, direction to regularize the services of the respondent-workmen appears to be misconceived. The claim of the respondent- workmen for regularization may succeed if they are able to establish before the Tribunal that they served the Branch on the day(s) of their engagement during the working hour on the day of their engagement, may be as Sweeper-cum- Farash or performing the duties of non- messengerial positions, like Water-boy, Cash Kuli etc. For the failure of the Tribunal to record finding about the hours of work rendered by the workmen on the day(s) of their engagement the Award dated 30.12.2006 which is contained in Annexure-2 and impugned in C.W.J.C.No. 10612 of 2007 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is accordingly, set aside and matter remitted back to the Tribunal to record finding about the hours of work rendered by the respondent-workmen on the day(s) of their 27 engagement. C.W.J.C No. 10612 of 2007 is, accordingly, disposed of. C.W.J.C.No. 13529 of 2006 has been dismissed, respondent-workmen be reinstated in the service of the Bank/Branch during the pendency of Reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2003 and be paid wages including arrears throughout as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act from time to time.
(V.N.Sinha,J.) P.K.P./A.F.R.