R.S. Chauhan, J.

1. The petitioner, the Bank of India, has challenged the legality of the award dated 21.12.2016, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, whereby the Learned Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the workman Mr. M.H. Shankarappa, and has directed the Bank to provide employment as a regular sub-staff to the respondent-workman. The Learned Tribunal has also directed that his appointment shall be treated as a fresh appointment, and he is not entitled to get any other benefit.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Mr. Shankarappa was appointed as a sub-staff on 20.4.1992, on a vacant post after following due procedure of selection. From 1992-2001, he continued to work for the Bank. However, on 8.3.2001, his services were terminated, but without giving any reason. After considering the request made by him, he was re-instated into service on 20.8.2002. However, a year later, on 1.8.2003, his services were again terminated for the second time. On 30.8.2004, the Bank entered into a settlement with the respondent-workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Hubli, with an understanding that the respondent-workman would be provided temporary work at the Shimoga Branch, upto 280 days in a year. Moreover, whenever vacancy arises, the respondent-workman would be considered against the said vacancy. Further, according to the said settlement, the Bank paid a bonus of Rs. 10,400/- to the respondent-workman for the services rendered by him from 1992 to 2004. But after having re-employed him in 2004, his services were again terminated which resulted in the raising of an industrial dispute. The reference was made to the Learned Labour Court as under:-

"The workman, Mr. M.H. Shankarappa has been appointed as a Sub-Staff on 20.04.1992 at Bank of India, Shimoga in the vacant post of Sub-staff, after the due process of employment through the employment exchange. Since, from the date of appointment, he has worked for nearly ten years. During the period of his service the II party has extracted, all kinds of sub staff work, from the I Party-workman. The II Party has suddenly denied the work to the I Party-workman from 08.03.2001, without quoting any reason. The I Party-workman has suffered a lot, due to the unilateral action of the II Party. Considering the request of the I Party-workman, the II Party has reinstated into the service, the I Party-workman again from 20.08.2002. In spite of sincere work of the I Party-workman, the II Party again terminated the service of the I Party-workman from 01.08.2003, without any notice or reason. On 30.08.2002, the II Party has entered into a settlement with the I Party before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Hubli. The II Party has signed the above settlement with an understanding that, the I Party-workman will be given temporary work at the Shimoga branch upto 280 days in a year and the I Party-workman will be filled in the vacancy of sub staff that exists in the State of Karnataka. Also, the II Party has paid to the I party-workman, a Bonus of Rs. 10,400/- on 02.12.2004 for the service rendered from 1992 to 2004, after filing complaint with the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). The II Party has adopted the unfair labour practice by employing the I Party-workman continuously for more than 10 years as temporary workman, so as to deny him, the benefits of permanent workman. Hence, the I Party-workman has requested to direct the II Party, to reinstate the service of I Party-workman, with full back wages, and ancillary benefits with costs."

3. In order to buttress his case, the respondent-workman examined himself as witness, and submitted twenty-six documents. In order to support their case, the petitioner had also examined a witness, and submitted two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by award dated 21.12.2016, the Learned Tribunal had directed the petitioner as aforementioned. Hence, the pe