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.