HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 3979 OF 2004

O R D E R:

Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.06.2003 passed by the 1^st respondent Tribunal in LCID No.16/2002 directing reinstatement of the 2^nd respondent without back wages, petitioner Bank is before this Court.

2. The case of petitioner bank is that the 2nd respondent, who was a temporary employee, filed ID No. 9 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam under Section 2 (A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, challenging his termination from service. The said dispute was transferred to the 1st respondent where it was re-numbered as LCID No. 16/2002.

2.1 It is stated that petitioner bank contended before the Tribunal that due to mechanisation of branches, the need for Attenders has considerably reduced in branches and offices in petitioner Bank, as such they are not in a position to absorb all the temporary attenders who are in the panel. It can absorb them only as and when the vacancies arise and they had taken a stand before this Court that it would not recruit any other person to fill up the regular vacancies and only candidates from the panel of temporary attenders alone wil1 be considered. The 1st respondent ought to have considered the above submissions and held that the workman was not entitled to any regularisation or absorption petition respondent.

2.2 The case of petitioner bank is that the 2^nd respondent was initially-engaged in their Bank in 1984 and since then working as a temporary Attender with break-ups from time to time and he was engaged on some occasions depending upon exigencies of work. The Government of India reviewed the ban on recruitment in the nationalised Banks and advised the banks to enter into separate settlements with their respective Unions to regularise the services of the temporary Attenders. Following the guidelines, the Bank had entered into a settlement dated 09.04.1996 under Section 12 of the Act with Syndicate Bank Employees’ Union, as per which, temporary employees in the Bank were classified into the following categories:

Temporary Attenders who had worked for more than 246 days in a consecutive period of 12 months between 1.1.1982 and who were entitled to the benefits of Section 25 (F) and (H) of the ID Act.

Temporary Attenders who have put in less than 240 days services as temporary but more than 90 days between 1.1.1982 and 31.12.89.

2.3 The 2nd respondent worked in petitioner Bank for only 170 days from 1994 to 1988, as such he was placed under the 2^nd panel ie. in the panel of Attenders who had worked for more than 90 days. Since there are several temporary persons who are senior to the 2^nd respondent in the panel, waiting absorption in regular vacancies, the 2^nd respondent is not entitled to any permanent appointment and he will have to wait till his term as per his seniority in the panel, according to petitioner.

2.4 It is stated that the 2^nd respondent was engaged as temporary Attender in Visakhapatnam Main Branch of petitioner Bank to perform duties on casual vacancies caused due to the leave/absence of regular attenders due to contingency of work. However, the Bank had received complaints against him from the customers. It was reported that he obtained standing instructions to transfer funds from the customer's account to his account by misrepresenting the facts and requested the Bank not to honour such letters. The Bank called for an explanation from the 2nd respondent which was found not satisfactory. Apart from the above, he was also served with several letters for his unsatisfactory work. There were also complaints against the workman regarding being irregular in attending to his duties and he was served with letters for his irregular attendance/unauthorised absence. The workman was also in the habit of indulging in outside borrowings beyond his capacity to repay which resulted persons concerned approaching him while he was on duty. Since the complaints were serious in nature and had