Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is contended that the petitioners were given the impression that the panels will be kept alive till all the empanelled candidates were absorbed in pursuance of the settlements and that no fresh recruitment will be taken up by the Bank till they were absorbed. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners had the legitimate expectation of being regularised in the services of the Bank on a permanent basis. Their impression and expectation is also strengthened by the Circular of the Government of India dated 16-8-1990 to alt the Chief Executives of the public sector banks including the bank in question that until the problem of existing temporary employees is resolved, no bank will be permitted to make, any temporary appointments. It is complained that inspite of all this, the bank chose to absorb or regulanse only some of the persons in the panels but did not regularise the petitioners and others. Therefore, the State Bank of India Temporary Employees' Union filed W.P.No.4194/97 in this Court seeking the relief of declaration that the action of the respondents in not implementing the settlements as illegal, arbitrary etc., and to direct the respondents to absorb them within 31-3-1997. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 5-3-1997 directing the respondents to implement the settlement before the expiry of March 1997. Thus, the petitioners and other empanelled candidates were all along under the bona fide impression that the implications of the settlements as above would be carried out by the bank. But the officers of the bank were issued directions by the 1st respondent/bank on 25-3-1997, 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 seeking to terminate the services of the petitioners and others in the panel and further directions not to engage them after 31-3-1997. Consequently there has been the oral termination of the petitioners and the empanelled candidates violating the terms of the settlement legitimate expectation of such persons and in violation of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.4194/97. These impugned proceeding are. challenged to be arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of Section 2(p) and 18(1) of the Act read with Rule 58 of the Rules and violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

"The problem of temporary employees in the Public Sector Banks has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite sometime. After due consideration of all relevant facts and in consultation with the Ministry of Labour an approach paper has been worked out to deal with the problem. A copy of the approach paper is enclosed for information and necessary action. I am accordingly directed to say that all the Public Sector Banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper both in the matter of recruitment as well as absorptions of temporary employees.

Uncontrovertedly, these directions were in regard to the workers/employees like the petitioners. The problem of existing temporary employees mentioned therein should necessarily refer to them, ft also meant that the problem of existing temporary employees has to be fully resolved and till then Banks will not be permitted to take up any temporary appointments. As already pointed out, an approach paper has explained the meaning of 'temporary employee' which is already found to include the employees like the petitioners. It has also explained the implications of non absorbing of such employees regarding which disputes were pending. Certain periods were fixed for absorbing such persons regarding which there were disputes. Item 4(d) of the approach paper clearly mentions that in all the cases which are pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunals, Labour Courts, High Court and Supreme Court, an opportunity referred to above will be provided irrespective of the cut off date for settling the said matters once and for all. Then, where is the question of any validated period for such absorptions whether it was the period mentioned in the first settlement or till 31-3-1997 as indicated in the impugned proceedings. While examining the effect of Section 25(H) of the I.D.Act, in item No.5 of the Approach Paper, it is indicated that the stand of the Ministry of Labour is that all cases of temporary employees irrespective of the minimum number of days worked are covered under Section 25(H) of the I.D.Act and they need to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and such cases were-on the increase. Furthermore, it was indicated that even where the temporary employees or workers who had put in less than 240 days' service were discontinued before 1S-S-1994, a settlement can be avoided and an opportunity for re-employment can be provided subject to certain conditions even by the administrative action of the Management Item No. 6(c) of the Approach Paper unequivocally declared that the banks will provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees by taking 1-1-1982 as the cut off date i.e-., all those who were engaged as temporary employees by the bank on or after 1-1-1982 may be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme being discussed by the employees. Item No. 6(k) of the Approach Paper concluded as follows:-

"This will be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlements and/or administrative exercise relating to their termination and other benefits under the provisions of the Industrial Law, if any. This fact will also be made dear in the advertisement proposed to be published under para 6(e) above."

Therefore all the banks were directed that recruitment of all temporary employees in the clerical/subordinate cadres shall be stopped forthwith. It was in pursuance of such directions, an advertisement was issued in the local newspapers as per the settlements and based upon that panels were prepared after an interview and the eligibility in terms of the settlement. Two salient features of the instructions of the Government in the form of directions can be noted viz., that there must be one time and whole time settlement to consider the absorption of such temporary employees in the existing panels as a problem is pending and till then no bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointment and such absorptions to implement such settlements should be resorted even by administrative action of the Management. As already indicated in regard to such problem, the Central Government expected the banks to approach the Government for future requirements and would go by such modalities as would be laid down by the Government. The respondent/ bank has conveniently ignored such directions or omitted to mention any other direction if issued nor referred to the same in the impugned proceedings that the bank had approached the Government for terminating the panels by 31-3-1997 and thereby directly and indirectly terminated all such temporary employees including the petitioners with the decision of the so called competent authority to lapse the panels. Spread sheet III shows the number of persons empanelled, absorbed and not absorbed as per the materials produced by the bank. It discloses that in all 6001 persons were empanelled, 3447 out of them were absorbed and the balance of 2554 are yet to be absorbed. It is also clear that while 1989 panels are yet to be exhausted, subsequent panels have been taken up for absorption and some of the panels are yet to be taken up for absorption and in one of the panels in C category more persons were absorbed than the number of persons in the panel without any explanation. The lists of persons empanelled and absorbed also do not indicate either the seniority to be followed for absorption or that there was any reason for not following the seniority. Apparently and admittedly, the petitioners who are in the panels were not absorbed on 31-3-1997. The only ground on which they are not absorbed is that the panels lapsed by 31-3-1997 by virtue of the impugned proceedings of the DGM which are found to be improper, illegal and inappropriate and without the authority of any law. Thus, the inference is that the settlements are not implemented either according to the stipulations or as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No. 4194/97 dated 5-3-1997.