The court's decision emphasized the importance of proving regularisation claims under relevant settlement agreements and upheld the Tribunal's findings based on evidence.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)

1. The instant LPA has been preferred by the Appellant, praying that the judgment dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 18065/2004 be set aside. The Appellant herein had filed the underlying writ petition challenging the Award dated 19.07.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), New Delhi in I. D. No. 181/198.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant (writ petitioner) - as stated in the writ petition, was recruited in the services of State Bank of India in the month of January 1983 as a Messenger-cum-Water Boy at Nangli Sakrawati Branch of the State Bank of India and continued up to December 1986. As per the statement of the Petitioner, he was re-engaged by the State Bank of India as a Messenger-cum-Water Boy in the same branch in the month of January 1989 and continued to work up to 31.11.1997.

3. The Petitioner - while he was in service, raised an industrial dispute claiming regularisation and the conciliation proceedings resulted in failure. The Reference was forwarded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and the same reads as under:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in not regularizing the services of Shri Karanvir Singh, messenger cum water boy w.e.f 1983 is just fair and legal. If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

4. The Appellant workman filed a statement of claim and the Industrial Tribunal has passed a detailed and exhaustive Award dismissing the claim of the workman. Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal read as under:

"6. It is not disputed as the workman was recruited in January, 1983 at Nangli Sakrawati Branch of the management bank as Messenger-cum-Water Boy and worked there till December, 1986 as Water boy and thereafter his services were terminated and further that he was again re-appointed in the service of the bank in January, 1989 in the said branch of the bank and worked there till 30.11.97 when his services were terminated. However, the bank claims that his appointment was not regular and valid as he was not appointed as per procedure laid down as per recruitment rules or process and that the manager of the bank Branch had no authority to appoint him or further he was appointed without approval from the competent authority and the bank has further claimed that he also failed to apply for permanent absorption/regularization in view of Bipartite agreement arrived in January 91 as such he is not entitled to the relief of regularization and reinstatement claimed in his petition. The perusal of the record shows that the workman was not employed or appointed to the post of water boy or messenger-cum-water boy through regular process nor he was given any appointment letter. However, he worked there as such for more than 240 days during the both periods from 1983-86 and 89 to 97. The respondent bank has admitted that he worked there on temporary basis or on daily wages and in view of the Bipartite Settlement dated 27.10.88 and 9.1.91 entered into between the employees Union and respondent bank. The workman was eligible to apply for regularization but he failed to do so. As such he is not entitled to the relief claimed. The workman in his statement of claim has averred that he applied for his absorption or regularization in view of the above said bipartite agreement but in his statement he did not depose so not any suggestion was put to the witness of the management MW1 that he so applied. MW1 Shri M.M. Sharma also stated in his evidence that he did not apply for absorption in the service or for regular appointment. Workman also failed to file copy of the application vide which he applied to the bank and he also failed to put/file copy of the application or he ever asked the Bank to produce the record to show that he had moved such an application. The burden to prove that he applied for reg