The court ruled that previous findings on termination legality must be respected, and interim orders do not count towards continuous service under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 award passed by the 2^nd respondent in ID No.1/2017.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

It is contended that the 1^st respondent was engaged as a temporary/substitute messenger in Althara Branch of the Bank during the period 01.01.1979 to 31.03.1997. Due to urgent needs several branches of the State Bank of India had engaged temporary messengers in leave vacancies purely as a temporary measure. Such temporary employees demanded permanent employment. The Bank entered into settlement with the trade union representing the workmen to absorb the temporary messengers and the vacancies available were thus filled up on the basis of the settlement. But thereafter the Bank has discontinued the service of all temporary employees on 31.03.1997 in terms of the settlement and thereupon the 1^st respondent was also thus relieved on 31.03.1997. The trade union representing the 1^st respondent and other temporary messengers raised a dispute alleging illegal termination of their services. The dispute raised by the trade union was referred to the 2^nd respondent as ID No.165/2006 and the dispute raised by the 1^st respondent was referred as ID No.141/2006. The 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P1 common award in the above disputes as well as in three other disputes raised by individual workmen holding that the action of the management in terminating the service of 84 empanelled temporary messengers is legal and justified and that they are not entitled for any relief. Ext.P1 award was not challenged either by the union or by the 1^st respondent. Thereafter the 1^st respondent again submitted a complaint before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Thiruvananthapuram alleging that his service has been illegally terminated. When the conciliation proceedings failed the Commissioner submitted a failure report before the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry refused to refer the matter for adjudication as per Ext.P2 order stating that the issue is one and the same which is considered in Ext.P1 award and the matter does not require fresh adjudication. The 1^st respondent however continued submitting replies before the Regional Labour Commissioner and ultimately the Ministry of Labour by order dated 09.05.2017 referred the question “whether the action of the management of SBI in dispensing with the services of Sasidharan J without complying with the provisions of the applicable Labour Laws is fair and justifiable and if any, for what relief he is entitled to”, for adjudication.

3. The 1st respondent filed Ext.P3 claim statement in the above said dispute which was numbered as ID No.15/2017 claiming that he had joined the service of the Bank in 1979, and that his service was terminated in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1947’) on 21.08.2000, but that he had continued in service till 06.08.2013, and therefore averred that his service was terminated illegally on 06.08.2013. The 1^st respondent did not mention about Ext.P1 award and Ext.P2 letter refusing reference in Ext.P3 claim statement. The petitioner filed a written statement pointing out the said suppression, wherein it is further contended that the 1^st respondent did not have continued service as defined under Section 25(b) of the Act, 1947, and the Bank has not engaged or extended service of the workmen from 01.04.1997 to 20.08.2000 as prayed by him. It is also contended that the claim statement is silent regarding the 1^st respondent’s engagement during the period 2000-2013 and that the 1^st respondent was engaged as a workman under M/s Clean and Clean Hygiene Services from January 2011 to September 2013 a