( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the respondent had been employed by the appellant as a messenger for a period of 91 days from 15-3-1980 to 30-6-1980. Prior to the appellant being appointed for this short stint the appellant had in a similar manner appointed one Sooraj for a short period. Subsequent to the expiry of the period for which the appellant was appointed, one Ram Kumar was appointed in the same capacity for a period of 88 days. The question to be resolved in this appeal is whether the respondent could, in these circumstances, be reinstated as a temporary employee with the appellant; and, if so, whether the respondent could claim and be allowed back wages until he was so reinstated.

( 3 ) THE issue was brought before the Labour Court at Kanpur when the government of India referred the following question for adjudication by it:

( 4 ) WHETHER the action of the management of State Bank of India, Varanasi in terminating the services of Shri Raja Ram, sub-staff with effect from 14-6-1980 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

( 5 ) THE Labour Court held that the respondent was a casual employee and that he was entitled to continue in service despite the expiry of the period for which he was appointed because there was an unfair labour practice on the part of the appellant in terminating the services of the respondent "when he was likely to acquire the status of a permanent employee after working for six months on that post, when he had already worked for three months and for another three months another person was appointed". The Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the action of the appellant in terminating the services of the respondent was not justified and that the respondent should be reinstated with full back wages.

( 6 ) THE writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court was rejected. The High Court concurred with the view of the Labour Court that the "repeated short-term appointments" to the post of temporary messenger amounted to unfair labour practice and that in the circumstances the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

( 7 ) AT the time of entertaining the special leave petition this Court granted stay of the operation of the award as affirmed by the High Court.

( 8 ) BEFORE us it has been submitted by the appellant that the provisions of section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would only apply to a permanent employee if the employee had been retrenched within the meaning of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Act. It is the further submission of the appellant that if Section 25-H applied, all the persons who had been retrenched, which in this case would include the persons who had been appointed on casual basis prior to the respondent, would have to be offered re-employment. It is also brought to this Courts notice that after the award had been passed and while the proceedings were pending before the high Court the appellant had entered into settlements with the Federation of workmen of the appellant.

( 9 ) THESE three settlements dated 17-11-1987, 22-10-1988 and 9-1-1991 provided a scheme for the employment of casual employees on permanent basis subject to certain terms and conditions. The scheme had been advertised and applications were invited from those who could claim benefit under the Scheme. The respondent who was otherwise covered by the Scheme and who could have applied, did not choose to do so. It is stated that in terms of the settlements casual employees like the respondent had in fact been permanently employed and that to allow the respondent relief as granted by the Labour Court would run counter to the scheme and settlements.

( 10 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that as far as the settlements were concerned, the point had never been raised by the appellant before the High Court and that in any event no offer had been made to the