Regularization of service under labor laws requires formal adherence to established processes; mere employment duration without appropriate applications does not confer entitlement.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award dated 19.07.2004 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned award") passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in ID. No. 181/98.

2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court denied relief to the petitioner since he failed to prove that he was appointed as a Messenger-cum-Water boy through a regular process. Also, learned Labour Court held that the petitioner was unable to establish that he moved an application for absorption in the service in pursuance of the Bipartite Settlement, therefore, is not entitled to regularisation of service.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioner was recruited as Messenger-cum-Water Boy in January 1983 at Nangli Sakrawati branch of the Respondent Bank. He rendered his service till December 1986, after which his service was terminated by the respondent Bank.

4. Meanwhile, on 17.11.1987, the Bank entered into a Bipartite settlement under Section 2(p) read with Sec. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act") with the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation ("the union"), for providing a chance to temporary employees for permanent appointment in the Bank. The same was circulated vide Respondent's Circular dated 23.04.1988. Eligibility of employees entitled for permanent appointment is provided in the settlement as under:

"....

NOW THESE PRESENTS WITNESS AND IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

1. The following category of temporary employees in subordinate cadre will be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the Bank's service against vacancies likely to arise in 1987 to 1991:

(i) Category 'A'; Those, who have completed 240 days temporary service in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975.

(ii) Category `B': Those, who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975.

(iii) Category 'C.; Those who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.71975 or a minimum of, 70 days' aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975.

....."

5. Thereafter multiple settlements/agreements were made between the union and the Bank on 16th July, 1988, 27th October, 1988 and 9th January, 1991 relating to permanent appointment of the eligible temporary employees in subordinate cadres in the Bank.

6. In January 1989, the petitioner was re-appointed in Respondent's service at the same branch on the existing vacancy. He worked there up to 30.11.1997, however his services were again terminated by respondent Bank without assigning any reason.

7. Aggrieved by the termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal for adjudication. The term of reference was as follows:

"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?"

8. Petitioner filed his statement of claim before the learned Labour Court wherein it was alleged that the Respondent has illegally terminated the petitioner's service in December 1986