Court affirmed petitioners' entitlement to benefits under a prior settlement, emphasizing the management's unjust refusal to regularize their positions.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award dated December 6, 2023 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata under Reference No.23 of 2018 and published in the Gazette of India dated February 20, 2024.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 10(1)(d) and 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred a dispute for adjudication before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta vide Memo No.12011/28/92(RB) dated April 27, 1992. The issue referred for adjudication is as follows:-

“Whether the demand of All Bank Canteen Employees Union (Calcutta) that canteen staff, employed by the canteen at the premises of Indian Bank, should be given regular appointment in the services of the Bank with minimum salary payable to regular appointment in the Bank, is justified ? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ?”

3. During the pendency of the said reference before the learned Tribunal, number of correspondences were made between the Bank and the Indian Bank Employees’ Union, which subsequently culminated into a settlement whereunder the Indian Bank was agreeable to include 91 canteen boys in the panel of temporary sub-staff as one-time measure as per norms prescribed in Co/Personnel Departments’ Circular No.24/83 dated March 4, 1983 with relaxation in respect of upper age limit which would be 40 years. The agreement was submitted before the Learned Tribunal on December 11, 1997 by way of an application containing the terms of the agreement verified by one Shri Dhiren Sil, the Assistant General Secretary of All Bank Canteen Employees’ Union. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the said agreement between the Management and the workmen and had been pleased to pass an award dated July 13, 1998 upholding such agreement and observing that the same is legal and fair. Thus, by an award dated July 13, 1998, the Reference dated April 27, 1992 was disposed of and the said agreement was made a part of the award.

4. The Indian Bank, the respondent no.2 herein, challenged the award dated July 13, 1998 by way of a writ petition being WP No.2101 of 1999, which the High Court was pleased to dismiss on February 26, 2002 holding that the award was passed on compromise. It was no more open to be challenged and/or reopened on any ground raised by the writ petitioner (Indian Bank) and the questions raised was no more sustainable.

5. The judgment of the Single Bench was challenged before the Division Bench wherein the judgment and order of the Single Bench was upheld on the observation that management missed the bus by not objecting to such settlement being approved before the learned Tribunal.

6. The Division Bench was pleased to modify the award to the extent that, since the reference was with regard to 41 canteen boys only and not 91 persons named in the list attached with the award, the award, therefore, would be applicable to the original 41 persons who were in service at the time of reference.

7. The Court further directed that “for the other 50 persons the Union would be entitled to raise similar dispute and such issue can be resolved through reconciliation on the same terms and conditions so that those 50 persons could also be brought within the hotchpots of the settlement to avoid further complication.”

8. The Court further directed that the bank is entitled to follow their regular recruitment rules and procedure while considering the empanelled candidate for regular appointment meaning thereby all those 41 persons would be invited for being considered in the post of sub-staff, as and when vacancy would arise subject to their eligibility with regard to age and qualification. The Division Bench had been specifically pleased to hold that ‘so long all those 41 persons are not considered and taken, the bank would not be entitled to go for regular recruitm