The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of an employee must comply with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the court has the authority to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Sujoy Paul, J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the award dated 30.8.2005 passed in Case No. CGIT LCR 59/1996 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short 'the tribunal'). The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication on 23.2.1996. The terms of reference was as under :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of india is relation to their Branch at Barula in terminating the services of Sh. Jagjivanlal Patel S/o Sh. Anupam Ram Patel, Messenger is justified ? If not, to what relief, the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

2. The tribunal passed the award and answered the reference in favour of the workman. The Tribunal opined that the termination of workman was illegal and void ab initio and workman shall be deemed to be in regular service with wages and allowances from the date of termination. In addition, cost of Rs. 2500/- was also imposed on the management.

3. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the employer criticised this award by contending that the workman was engaged in two spells; firstly he was engaged between 1.1.1989 to 4.5.1989 in Sori Khurd branch. Thereafter, he worked between 29.3.1990 to 7.12.1993 in Barula branch. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed by order Annexure P-10 for a period between 29.3.1990 to 4.5.1990.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner was appointed up to 4.5.1990, admittedly, he continued in employment till 7.12.1993.

5. By taking this Court to the conditions mentioned in this appointment order, learned counsel for the bank submits that petitioner was appointed on a contract. The appointment order in no uncertain terms makes it clear that his appointment was for a limited period and such appointment will not confer any right whatsoever to continue in employment. It is submitted that the appointment was made for sudden exigency and on regular appointment being made, the petitioner's services were required to be terminated.

6. In this backdrop, it is submitted that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') is attracted. Hence, the tribunal has erred in declaring the termination order as illegal for non compliance of Section 25(F) of the Act.

7. To elaborate, learned counsel for the bank submits that Section 2(oo) has certain exceptions including Section 2(oo) (bb). Since the case of workman is covered by Section 2(oo)(bb), Section 25(F) could not have been applied by the tribunal.

8. The second limb of argument of Shri Shroti is that between the Unions of the workmen and the management, certain bipartite settlements have been entered into. As per these conditions of settlement, all disputes/cases were required to be withdrawn by the employees. Such temporary employees were not entitled to back-wages in terms of these settlement.

9. Shri Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these settlement were repeatedly and periodically entered into between the Unions and management and this process continued till 1997. The respondent was selected for appointment on regular basis by order dated 31.7.1997, Annexure P-6 but he did not join on the post of Messenger.

10. Shri Shroti, learned counsel for the management submits that the tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of reference. The reference was relating to the validity of termination of the petitioner. Hence, while deciding the validity of termination, the court below could have decided the question of reinstatement on a post which was occupied by the petitioner at the time of his termination. The petitioner was admittedly a temporary employee hence while directing his reinstatement, the tribunal could not have directed his reinstatement as a regular employee. In addition, it is submitted that the respondent has worked for about three years. Since, he has worked for a very small period of time, the tribunal should n