JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to I.D.No.577 of 2001 on the file of the 1st respondent dated 20.08.2004 (received by the petitioner on 20.01.2005) and quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the Award of the 1st Respondent dated 20.08.2004 passed in I.D.No.577 of 2001, in by which, the 1st Respondent directed the Bank to regularize the services of one Tmt.Sukanya, a Part Time Worker, whose case was represented through Union/2nd Respondent herein, from the date of Award.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are, in short, referred to as Bank, Employee and Union respectively (for Indian Bank, Tmt.Sukanya and Indian Bank Employees’ Association).

Brief Facts:

3. It was the case of the Bank that one Sukanya was appointed as a Temporary Part-Time Sweeper engaged by the Bank in terms of Chapter 10 Clause 20.8 of Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 (in short ‘Settlement of the year 1966’) only for a period of three months only as stipulated therein. The Employee has no right to claim permanency as per Clause 20.8 or 20.12 of the Settlement of the year 1966 and she is not entitled to any benefits, except for considering her case in preference as and when vacancy arises.

3.1. It was further case of the Bank that the Employee’s mother, namely, Rajammal was employed as permanent Part Time Sweeper in half scale wage basis prior to 1992 and in her mother’s absence, she would have worked on casual basis and at no point of time, she was employed continuously, as the employment was sporadic in nature. When the Bank decided to call for a list of candidates from the Employment Exchange for appointment of Part Time Sweeper, the Union moved the conciliation machinery under the I.D.Act, 1947, by virtue of which, the selected candidates were not appointed;

3.2. It was also case of the Bank that Union obtained an order of interim injunction, interfering with her engagement as Casual Sweeper and since the Government of India refused to refer the dispute raised by the Employee, Union filed W.P.No.14743 of 1999 and this Court, by an order dated 30.01.2001, directed the Government to refer the dispute for adjudication, pursuant to which, the Tribunal took up the matter in I.D.No.577 of 2001, to decide the following issue:

“Whether it is fact that the disputant Smt.Sukanya has been engaged as a temporary part time sweeper by the Management of Indian Bank from the year 1992 and from 1st July, 1996 continuously without any break?

Whether the claim of the Union for regularisation of Smt.Sukanya in Bank’s service is justified and reasonable? If so, what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to?”

3.3. It was averred by the Bank that Sukanya was continued to be engaged as a Part Time Sweeper and the Bank was prevented from acting in accordance with the terms of settlement dated 28.07.1993 and directions of Government of India’s Banking Division dated 30.09.1978 and its Circular dated 26.03.1983. The Tribunal, without proper application of law to the facts on hand, passed the Award as stated supra and according the Bank, the Employee’s entry was not through proper channel and it was a stop gap arrangement only. Therefore, aggrieved by the Award, the Bank is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Union/2nd Respondent herein submitted that the Bank, having allowed the employee to continue in service for years together, cannot now refuse to grant permanency, ignoring the fact that she had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 Calender months. She further stated that the decision of the Two Judges’ Bench of Supreme Court, cited by the Bank in the case of Range Forest Officer Versus S.T.Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25, holding that initial burden of proof is with the Workman to establish that he/she had completed required period of service, was rendered at that