Differential treatment of similarly situated employees violates equality under Article 14; non-regularization of a long-serving workman in contrast to others amounts to unjust discrimination.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the Award dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 24 of 2014; whereby the Ld. Tribunal held that the action of the Management in not regularizing the services of the respondent–workman is unjustified and had directed the Bank to regularize the workman against a regular vacant post of Driver/Peon within 30 days from publication of the Award.

3. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner-Bank that the workman was never appointed by the Bank, either orally or in writing, and was merely a personal driver of Bank executives whose salary was reimbursed as per internal policy.

4. It has further been argued that there existed no employer–employee relationship between the Bank and the respondent and hence, no legitimate industrial dispute existed between the parties for reference and adjudication u/s 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.

5. It has also been argued that regularization of the other three drivers, whose reference for adjudication was made and they having been regularized during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned CGIT does not confer any legal right upon the respondent workman to be regularized.

6. It has further been contended that recruitment in a nationalized bank should confirm and follow statutory recruitment rules and advertisement process, and the Award for regularization of services of the workman dehors rules, is impermissible.

7. In order to buttress her argument, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Ghulam Dastagir reported in (1978) 2 SCC 358 to argue that personal drivers of officers cannot claim regularization against the Bank.

8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent- workman had submitted that he has been in continuous engagement since 05.05.1988; driving the vehicle owned, maintained, fueled, and controlled by the Central Bank of India for official duties of its Regional Manager.

9. Learned counsel for the workman has further relied and referred to the manner and source from which he was drawing the monthly wages and also drew parity from the other three workmen, whose services had been regularized.

10. Learned counsel for the workman stressed upon the seniority list of the Drivers, which is annexed at Page No. 76 to the writ petition, which contains a list of 09 nos. of similarly placed drivers along with their date of joining and posting and in the said list, the name of the respondent- workman is at Sl. No.1; whereas the name of Sri Madan Gopal Prasad, Sri Raendra Prasad Srivastava and Sri Vijay Prasad Gupta figures at Sl. No. 2, 3 and 4.

11. Learned counsel had also relied upon the exhibited documents (W-9 and W-12 Series) to prove that the vehicle was owned by the Bank and deployed exclusively for official work. All operational expenses were borne by the Bank, demonstrating effective control, supervision, and integration with Bank’s business.

12. At this juncture, it is very relevant to take into consideration, the reference made under Clause(d) of sub-section (i) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under: -

“Whether the action of the Management of Central Bank of India in not regularizing Sri Madan Gopal Prasad, Sh. Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Sh. Pradeep Mondal and Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta is justified? If not, what relief the workmen