R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J.

( 1 ) ALL the aforesaid writ petitions are directed against the common award dated July 17, 1996 and questions of fact and law involved are identical. All the petitions can thus be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment to which parties have no objection. Writ Petition No. 35145 of 1996 shall be the leading case.

( 2 ) FACTS, in short, giving rise to these petitions are that Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kan-pur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) appointed respondents workmen in these petitions as clerks for the period May 5, 1981 to July 22, 1981 and then from August 4, 1981 to August 13, 1981. From August 14, 1981 they were not allowed to work on these posts. The concerned workmen raised an Industrial dispute which was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal vide order dated August 20, 1986. Both the parties filed their written statements and adduced evidence. The case of the workmen was that there were permanent vacancies of clerks on which they were appointed for a definite period. Their appointment was to meet the work of permanent nature though the appointment was temporary one and they were entitled to continue on the posts. However, by adopting unfair labour practice opposite parties did not allow them to work on their posts though juniors were allowed to continue. In their place fresh hands were recruited but they were not given opportunity. In this way the employer bank committed breach of sections 25-C and 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The action of the employer was also against the provision of Bipartite Settlement, Shastri Award and Desai award.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner bank, on the other hand, was that the claim of the workmen is highly belated. Their appointment was for a specific period in leave vacancies. As the ap pointment came to an end by efflux of time, it was not a case of retrenchment and it was cov ered by the provisions of Section 2 (bb) (oo) of the Act. As it did not amount to retrenchment, Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act have no ap plication. It has also been submitted that re-: cruitment to the post of clerk is made through the Banking Service Recruitment Board and the concerned workmen could not be inducted in service without successfully appearing in the examination.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, recorded finding that the claim of the workmen is not stale and is not liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. All the concerned workmen were appointed in clear vacancies and were discharging work of a permanent nature. However, they worked in the bank for the period of 80 to 90 days. Then it was also found that as the dispute is in respect of the period 1981 and provisions of Section 32 (bb) (oo) of the Act came in force on august 17, 1984, the provision will not be applicable and termination of employment of the workmen amounted to retrenchment, that Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act are independent and their application is not dependent on the application of Section 25-F of the Act. There is no evidence to establish the violation of Section 25-G of the Act. However, the bank committed violation of Section 25-H of the Act as the concerned workmen were not afforded opportunity and fresh recruitments were made. It may be true that the recruitment on the post of clerk is made through the Banking Service Recruitment Board but the claim of the concerned workmen can be defeated only when it is shown that they were given opportunity to appear in the test and they railed to pass it. The concerned workmen are responsible for the delay in disposal of the case and they are not entitled for any back wages. However, there was violation of Section 25-H of the Act and they are entitled to reinstatement in service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated July 17,1996, petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of india.

( 5 ) SHRI Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document