The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act in the context of temporary employment and the limitations of Section 25-H in providing an automatic right for re-employment.

( 1 ) THE award of the Tribunal given on June 5, 1987, by which reinstatement with full back wages have been granted to the workman, has been challenged by the petitioner Bank.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri Yeshwant Varma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri A. K. Gaur and Sri Hasan for the respondents.

( 3 ) THE respondent workman Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra was given a temporary appointment by the petitioner-bank as Watchman at the Transport Nagar Branch at Kanpur for a period between september 20, 1982 to December 8, 1982 (a total period of 80 days) vide appointment letter specifying the definite period of appointment. In view of the specific period mentioned in the appointment letter, the services of the workman came to an end after the period mentioned therein had expired. No order of termination was passed by the petitioner Bank. The Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Notification dated May 29, 1986 which was to the following effect: "whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in terminating the services of Sri Santosh Kumar Misra Ex-temporary Watchman at Transport Nagar Branch, kanpur w. e. f, December 8, 1982 is justified and legal in. view of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the I. D. Act, if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

( 4 ) THE respective parties after filing their written statements also led evidence and examined their respective witnesses.

( 5 ) INTER alia, the stand of the workman was that the bank has started a practice of appointing temporary employees for performing regular nature of work in view of the directions issued by the Head Office and his appointment was also in accordance with the said policy. It was further stated that the business of the bank was increasing and in fact new branches were opened at kanpur after cessation of his employment. The workman further went on to state that fresh hands were taken in and juniors were retained while his services were terminated. Further he contended that no notice for retrenchment or compensation was given. All this, he claimed, apart from being in violation of Section 25-G and H of the Act, also contravened the provisions of Shastri award and Tripartite Settlement. This action, it was contended, was arbitrary, discriminatory, unjustified and amounted to unfair labour practice. Therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages from the date of cessation of his employment.

( 6 ) THE petitioner bank in their written statement claimed that the appointment of the workman was for a fixed term and the very nature of the appointment was such that it was not covered by section 25-G. It was further stated that the workman had neither worked for 240 days nor his appointment continued for one year and as such he was not entitled to any relief. It was also stated that Section 25-H was not violated and no fresh hands were taken. It was further stated that the selection of all posts in the bank is being done by a Recruitment Board and the Bank itself could not make any appointment in view of the laws applicable to it. Therefore, it was contended, to meet the administrative exigencies, temporary and casual appointments were made for the smooth working of the Bank. Further, it was stated that in view of the definition of the word, retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (oo), no reference ought to have been made and if made ought to be rejected.

( 7 ) THE Government, in somewhat similar circumstances, had made seven references in relation to 30 workmen and the Tribunal after consolidating all those references had given a common award on May 14, 1987. In the Reference No. 12793 of 1987 (with respect to 3 workmen), Reference no. 12795 of 1987 (with respect to one workman), and Reference No. 12796 of 1987 (with respect to six workmen), the Government