Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The necessary brief facts of the case for the purpose of considering the rival contentions of the parties and to answer the same, the legal issues that have been raised by the parties on the basis of the findings recorded by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal in the impugned Award after adjudication of the industrial dispute between the Bank and the second respondent-Union are stated as hereunder. At the instance of the concerned 32 workmen whose names are listed in the annexure to the order of reference made by the Government of India are extracted in the Award. An industrial dispute was raised by the second respondent with regard to the regularisation of their services as ticca mazdoor employees in the petitioner's-Bank, Bangalore. The said industrial dispute was concpiliated before the Conciliation Office notified by the Union of India. Dispute sincere conciliation efforts made by the Conciliation Officer, the parties could not come to an amicable settlement which has resulted in submission of the failure report by him to the Union of India, in turn it has exercised its power under Section [10(2)(A) to (D)] of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (in short, 'I.D. Act') and referred the points for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal as per schedule of reference. After receipt of the reference from the Union of India by the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal, the claim statement and counter statements were filed by the respective parties in justification of the respective claim and counter claim of the parties. It is the case of the second respondent-Union that all the 32 concerned workmen named in the schedule to the reference were recruited by the Bank through Employment Exchange for the posts of ticca mazdoors from the dates mentioned against their names and their categories are also shown at paragraph 2 of the Award. It is the further grievance of the second respondent-Union that though the concerned workmen have been performing their duties as permanent workmen for years in the Bank as their nature of work was perennial in nature, they were called as ticca daily wage mazdoors with an object of depriving them of their status and statutory benefits as permanent workmen for which they are entitled in law and they have been illegally treated as daily wage employees. It is also the further case of the Union that the Officers of the Bank who engaged in recruiting and filling up the vacant posts of the Class IV employees in the bank by resorting to direct recruitment, unhealthy and unprincipled practice to certain other categories of junior and part-time employees which action of them is contrary of law and they have adopted dubious methods of selections at the cost of 32 concerned workmen who have been selected as they were qualified and experienced in their respective jobs. It is further alleged that N. Ramalingam and V.V. Srinivas who were part-time sweepers and were juniors to the first ten ticca mazdoors of the present 32 workmen, have been appointed as mazdoors by the Bank. It is alleged that N. Ramalingam had even failed in the interview conducted in the year 1982 by the Bank for the recruitment to the post of ticca mazdoor. In that interview, the first ten of 32 workmen were successful candidates. It is alleged that N. Ramalingam who had failed in the interview was recruited as part-time sweeper and V.V. Srinivas was also appointed as a part-time sweeper in 1983. It has been further alleged that Ramakrishna, S. Rangaraju, K. Ramamurthy and I.K. Singha were directly appointed as peons in 1989 ignoring the concerned 32 ticca mazdoors workmen. It is further stated that Ramakrishna, M. Krish-namraju, D. Nagaraju, Ramalingaiah, V.V. Chandrashekar and E. Manohar who were ticca mazdoors and who were juniors to many of the present 32 workmen were appointed as peons ignoring the rights of the present 32 concerned workmen. The details regarding the list of persons who were given switchover from other categories and appointed as mazdoors by the Bank since 1-9-1982 exhausting the available mazdoor vacancies at the cost of 32 workmen are stated at paragraph 2 of the impugned Award.

20. Further at paragraph 13 of the impugned award the Tribunal has referred to entry at Sl. No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule to Section 2(ra) under the heading unfair Labour Practice on the part of the employer as enumerated under the I.D. Act which clearly states employing workmen as casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen, is an unfair labour practice. With reference to the said entry in the Fifth Schedule, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has recorded a finding holding that the action of the Bank in not regularising the 32 concerned workmen as permanent mazdoors would clearly amount to unfair labour practice. The Tribunal has also considered the legal submissions made on behalf of the Bank placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Limited and Another v Maharashtra State Co. operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Employees' Union and Another, which relates to the seasonal employees, therefore the Tribunal has rightly held that the ratio laid down in that case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. Further, reliance is placed by the Bank upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case, supra, wherein the Supreme Court has noticed that some initial recruitments were in violation of the norms and rules. In that process, some employees had secured employment through the backdoor method. Under the said circumstances, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and held that it would be difficult to sustain the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that all those ad hoc employees who have put in one year's service should be regularised, and the direction was given without reference to the existence of vacancies. The law laid down in the said case has been considered by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the observations made in the said judgment at paragraph 51 is also considered wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that if a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell, say 2 or 3 years, the presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation, and while doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. The said judgment has been considered and distinguished and applied to this case, relying upon the observations made at paragraph 51 of said judgment and it has rightly held that the concerned workmen have been working a long spell and they have been continued to work in the Bank and therefore the Tribunal has held that concerned workmen in the dispute are entitled to be regularised as permanent workmen in their respective posts.

25. The second respondent-Tribunal, after referring to the various judgments referred to above in the Award, it has held, stating that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to, supra, the Bank could not have kept 32 ticca mazdoors on tender hooks by not regularising their services as permanent workmen and further the Tribunal has also considered with regard to the switchover system as per Exhibit M. 1-directions were given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central as per Exhibit M. 5, directing the Bank not to make any change till the representation of Sweepers/Parashs of the Bank of other second respondent-Union are considered by the Bank. Therefore the existence of vacancies in the Bank were not there is not tenable. The law laid down in the said case has been considered by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the observations made in the said judgment of Piara Singh's case, supra, at paragraph 51 is also considered wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that if a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell, say 2 or 3 years, the presumption may arise there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation, and while doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. The said judgment has been considered and distinguished and applied to this case, relying upon the observations made at paragraph 51 of the said judgment and it has rightly held that the concerned workmen have been working a long spell and they have been continued to work in the Bank and therefore the Tribunal has held that concerned workmen in the dispute are entitled to be regularised as permanent workmen in their respective posts.

33. Further we have to record a finding holding that the settlement upon which reliance is placed by the Bank is not binding upon the members of the second respondent-Union for the reason that the same has been arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the industrial dispute before the first respondent-Tribunal for which it is not a party and it is not a conciliation settlement under the provisions of the I.D. Act. Notwithstanding this fact, the terms and conditions of the settlement are not binding upon the members of the second respondent-Union including the concerned 32 workmen. At the instance of the second respondent-Union the industrial dispute was referred by the Government of India in the first respondent Tribunal for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute on the basis of the claim made by the Union which is adjudicated by the first respondent-Tribunal after giving particulars of the employment of the concerned workmen to establish their respective cases by producing positive and substantive evidence on record to substantiate their claim. The petitioner-Bank has failed to produce the evidence to show that the claim of the concerned workmen is not justifiable for the reason that their services have been engaged only against the casual vacancies occurred on account of the permanent workmen availing leave and further the Bank has failed to prove that the concerned workmen have not rendered continuous service from the date of their engagement as mentioned in the schedule to the points of dispute referred to by the Government. Therefore, the first respondent-Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact on appreciation of material evidence on record considering the judgments of the Supreme Court holding that the concerned workmen have rendered continuous permanent nature of work for quite a long time is a finding of fact, but however the Tribunal has not recorded its reasons in support of the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. For this reason we have supplemented our reasons to the award of the judgment in this judgment in support of the findings recorded by the Tribunal.