Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.A.SWAMY
K.Chinna Keshavulu - Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank, Dy.General manager, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-31-96
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SETTLEMENT - VALIDITY - RES JUDICATA - SENIORITY - FIXATION - EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE - REGISTRATION - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES - REGULARISATION - BACKLOG VACANCIES - SPORTSMEN QUOTA - BAN ON REGULAR APPOINTMENTS - LIFTING.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, working as temporary attenders in various branches of the respondent bank in the State of Andhra Pradesh, filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the action of the respondents in trying to terminate their services pursuant to a circular issued by the Zonal Office of the respondent bank at Hyderabad. The bank resisted the claim of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the judgment of this Court rendered earlier, operates as res judicata as the same set of facts were in existence at the time of filing of the writ petitions on the earlier occasion.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the earlier judgment does not operate as res judicata and the respondents cannot press into service the principle of res judicata in this batch of Writ Petitions. The Court further held that the settlement entered into between the parties is perfectly in accordance with the Law laid down by the apex Court as well as this Court, except clarifying one or two aspects of the settlement, as the same was entered pursuant to the Approach paper prepared by the Central Govt. for entire banking industry.
Issues: 1. Whether the earlier judgment operates as res judicata? 2. Whether the settlement entered into between the parties is valid? 3. Whether the seniority of the temporary employees should be fixed with reference to the date of their registration in the employment exchange or the date of their first appointment in the bank? 4. Whether the bank is justified in regularising the services of some of the temporary employees from time to time? 5. Whether the bank is justified in continuing the ban on regular appointments for decades?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of res judicata cannot be invoked in the present case as the earlier judgment did not examine the scheme prepared by the bank and recorded a finding that the same is in accordance with law. 2. The settlement entered into between the parties is valid as it is in accordance with the law laid down by the apex Court and this Court, and is based on the Approach paper prepared by the Central Govt. for the entire banking industry. 3. The seniority of the temporary employees should be fixed with reference to the date of their first appointment in the bank, and not with reference to the date of their registration in the employment exchange. 4. The bank is not justified in regularising the services of some of the temporary employees from time to time, as the same is arbitrary and illegal exercise of power vested in it. 5. The bank is not justified in continuing the ban on regular appointments for decades, as the same is deplorable and is nothing but unfair labour practice.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed off with the following directions: 1. The respondents were directed to review the orders passed from time to time regularly absorbing some of the temporary employees and to considering the cases of the temporary employees working in the bank for absorption in accordance with the terms of settlement entered into on 9-4-1996. 2. The respondents were directed not to consider the cases of personal drivers for regular absorption in the vacancies ear-marked for attenders. 3. The respondents were directed to review the position of back-log vacancies for S. Cs. and S. Ts. district-wise and regularise the services of all those candidates in those back-log vacancies. 4. The respondents were directed to lift the ban on regular appointments to the extent to the regular vacancies that have arisen till this date and consider the claims of all eligible candidates for regular absorption as per the settlement entered into between the parties on 09-04-1996.
( 2 ) THE respondent bank resisted the claim of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the judgment of this Court rendered earlier, operates as res judicata as the same set of facts were in existence at the time of filing of the writ petitions on the earlier occasion.
( 3 ) THIS Court after perusing the scheme prepared by the bank alone dismissed the Writ Petitions in the earlier round of litigation and the seniority list was prepared only on the basis of the said scheme and the bank has not violated any of the conditions in the scheme. It is also the case of the respondents that as far as candidates sponsored by the employment exchange is concerned the seniority was fixed with reference to the date of their registration in the employment exchange and with regard to the others, the seniority was fixed with reference to their first date of appointment in the bank. Lastly, the bank contended that in view of the settlement entered into between the management and the representatives of the Union in the presence of the conciliation officer under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (inshort the Act ) and basing on the said settlement the Industrial Tribunal at Chennai passed an award in I. D. No. 38/89, dated 04-11-1996, and the same is binding on all the workmen. Hence, it is not open to this Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the settlement entered into between the parties.
( 4 ) THE petitioners filed a rejoinder mainly contending that they are not parties to the settlement and as they are not members of any Union or they have not authorised anyone to enter into settlement on behalf of them, the same is not binding on them, more so when the award was not published in the Gazette.
( 5 ) THE hearing in this case was spread over for a period of six months mainly due to the reason that the scheme prepared by the bank stated that the seniority was fixed while the lists of the temporary sub-staff were drawn i. e. , for the candidates sponsored by employment exchange date of registration in the employment exchange was taken as criteria for counting the seniority but not the date of first appointment in the bank. During the course of hearing much heat has also generated.
( 6 ) I feel that having gone through the settlement entered into between the management and the representatives of the Union on 09-04-1996, I need not advert to all the contentions raised by the respective parties because no useful purpose will be served in recording the findings as the settlement entered into between the parties is perfectly in accordance with the Law laid down
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
