Back
1998 Supreme(AP) 2
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.K.SOMASEKHARA
M.Rajaiah - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India - Respondent
Decided On : 01-01-98
Headnote:
Indian Contract Act – Section 23 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 – Industrial Dispute Central Rules – Rule 58 – Industrial Disputes Act – Sections 2, 18 – Regularization of Services – 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 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. 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 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. – 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. – Held, In view of the complexities involved and the apprehensions expressed on behalf of the petitioners whether they would get their due share of their justice if either the bank or any other Court of Tribunal is entrusted with the task of implementing the settlements, this Court feels that a Commissioner of the cadre of a District Judge is to be appointed to fulfil the objective of the reliefs which are going to be granted by this Court ultimately and in the situation it is for the bank to meet all such expenses having been guilty of the consequences of injustice. – A time frame is also necessary to implement the order of this Court in view of the deliberate and adamant attitude of Mr. A.Suryanarayana, the Assistant General Manager and Mr. Vinod Kumar Malhotra, the Chief General Manager of the Bank and other persons concerned with it in flouting the orders of this Court in addition to not assisting this Court by producing all the relevant materials and in view of the calculated fraud deliberately planned and perpetrated at various stages regarding the implementation of the settlements, this is also a fit case to initiate contempt proceedings against such persons or authorities in addition to prosecuting them, however, after identifying them and fixing the responsibility through the Commissioner. – It is declared that the settlements in question were to be fully implemented till all the workers like the petitioners empanelled were absorbed. – It is further declared that the settlements in question are not implemented in their true implications in the light of the observations made in the Judgment and that the respondent/ bank is bound to implement them by absorbing all the empanelled candidates in accordance with the settlements. – Any action taken by the bank as pleaded on and after 31-3-1997 is violauve of the implications of the settlements in question – Writ Petitions Allowed
ORDER
1. These writ petitons constitute a batch between the similarly placed petitioners in all respects and the common respondents. They also sprout out queries of synonymous lex and factum. The antonym is individual grievances among the common. Spread Sheet-T is a chart comprising enumerated cases each batch, branches of the bank in which the petitioners are working (or were working), names of the Advocates and the reliefs claimed. The 1st respondent is the Central Office of the State Bank of India, the 2nd respondent the Chief Genera! Manager, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent Deputy General Manager, Department of Commercial network, local Head Office, Hyderabad, 4th respondent-Deputy General Manager, Hyderabad and the 5th respondent, the Asst. General Manager, Region-11, Zonal Office, Hyderabad as described in WP No.9206/97 and similar branches and its offices as described in other writ petitions. Distinguishably, the respondents in all the cases can be classified as the State Bank of India, its branches and the officers.
2. The petitioners are the hapless and helpless workers of the State Bank of India, called the temporary employees/daily wage casual workers/empanelled workers rolled into the expression 'subordinate staff, being designated as messengers, sweepers, water boys, watchman etc. Their services tenure in the bank service varies from 8 days at a time to 18 years, as a whole as projected sometimes on casual basis on daily payment and sometimes on wage basis and sometimes on regular scale basis, but intermittently without continuity in service. Most of the petitioners are the members belonging to SC and ST. It appears that they were engaged as such from 1974 onwards. They were appointed both from the list of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and directly by holding interviews. It appears that all of them possess the basic educational qualification having passed 8th class.
3. Having not been absorbed in the suitable posts by the bank inspite of their services rendered for a longtime with unsecured tenure, they and similarly placed employees took up the matter with the Bank through All India State Bank of India Staff Federation (in short, the Federation) to absorb them or regularise them in such posts. The management of the Bank also decided to provide them an opportunity to be considered for permanent appointment from among them who were found to be suitable for permanent appointment. That resulted in a settlement between the Federation and the Bank dated 17-11-1987 u/s 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Dispute Central Rules (in short, the Act and the Rules). Under this settlement they were classified into three categories, viz., (i) those who have completed 240 days' temporary service in 12 months or less after 1-7-1975, (ii) those who have completed 270 days' aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975, and (iii) those who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or a minimum of 70 days' aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975. Certain conditions were prescribed to fix their suitability for their permanent appointment in the bank under the settlement. They were to be interviewed by a selection committee to determine the suitability. Clause 7 of the agreement provided for preparing the panel of the selected candidates to be wait listed in the order of the respective categorisation and the panels so prepared were to be valid upto December 1991. It also spelt out the various criteria for consideration and procedure to be followed in absorbing such wait listed candidates in the panels. In pursuance of the settlement, applications were called for from such of the temporary eligible employees by a notification of the Bank in the local newspapers for the purpose of absorption. The petitioners applied in response
