Attenders were not given opportunity of being heard prior to the settlement.

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

In the present appeal, the management of Syndicate Bank challenges the judgment by the learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by twenty respondents herein. In that writ petition, the respondents who were panelists in the panel maintained for temporary attenders challenged a circular dated August 4, 1988, whereby the management directed that the part-time sweepers may be entrusted temporarily with the duties of sub-staff members in the vacancies of regular stab-staff members arising on account of leave or absence subject to the condition that such sweeper should have atleast passed V Standard. It was then directed by the same circular that in case of the non-availability of the eligible part-time sweepers for temporary entrustment, the said employment should be offered to the empanelled candidates amongst the temporary attenders, again subject to the condition that the candidates, who had completed 240 days as temporary attenders as on February 3 (sic), 1984 should be given preference over the other empanelled candidates. The learned Judge has quashed this circular as unreasonable and in addition to it, it is directed that common seniority list should be prepared of the part-time sweepers and temporary attenders and when the occasion arises, the jobs should be offered as per the seniority in the list. It will be better to appreciate few facts in order to consider the controversy involved.

It is an admitted position that the Bank maintains a panel of the person who are called temporary attenders. It is also an admitted position that there are two panels of temporary attenders. Firstly consisting of those attenders who had completed 240 days of service as on December 31, 1989 and of the attenders who had exceeded the duty of 90 days but had not completed the duty of 240 days. It is also an admitted position that it is strictly understood in the management that such panelists, who had not completed 240 days of duties should not be allotted the duty, so that they could exceed 89 days of work meaning thereby the panelists in the second panel would be getting the employment for only 89 days in one year. It is further an admitted position that there is a completely different stream of workers who are called the permanent part time sweepers. They are in regular employment of the Bank though on part-time basis. It seems that while the employees who were the permanent part-time sweepers were members of the union the panelists like petitioners were not the members of the union. There was a settlement between the union and the management of the Bank, in pursuance of the union's demands that instead of offering temporary employment which occasioned from time to time to the panelists like the petitioners, who had not completed 240 days, the first preference should be given to such of the sweepers who had passed the V standard. The natural result of adjustment was that the sweepers in addition to their monthly salary would be earning more than his salary of a job as a temporary attender, as admittedly the pay structure in the case of temporary attenders is better. Thus the petitioners who are the panelists in the panel of workers who had not completed 240 days, would be likely to be side tracked due to the preference given to these sweepers and would be likely to lose their opportunity to be employed even for a short period in the Bank in the posts of temporary attenders. The precise challenge of the petitioners, who are panelists in the panel of workers who had not completed 240 days, say that this meant a total injustice against them and the circular which is the result probably of the understanding between the union and the Bank spelt a differential treatment in favour of the sweepers and discriminatory attitude against the panelists like the petitioners. In their affidavit, the petitioners point out that they expected to be panelists in the fond hope tha