THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.12954 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted on behalf of the State Bank of India, calling in question the validity of the Award passed on 08-11-2000, by the Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.246 of 1998, raised by the 1st respondent herein. The petitioners all are officers of the State Bank of India and they are espousing the cause of the Bank. It is their case that the Bank has established staff training centers at various places for the purpose of imparting training to the staff and officers employed in the Bank on regular and continuous basis. One such staff training center was established at Kakinada and the maintenance work of the said training center has been awarded to the 3rd respondent contractor, permitting him to engage certain staff for the general maintenance, supply and upkeep of the same. The Bank asserts that the 1st respondent was engaged by the 3rd respondent contractor and he did work as a Watchman during the period from 01-07-1990 to 31-10-1992, whereas the 1st respondent workman would assert that he continued to work as a Watchman-cum-Service Boy till 31-10-1994, when ultimately, a decision has been taken to wind up the establishment at Kakinada and merge it with the existing staff training center at Vizianagaram. Complaining that he has been unjustly denied absorption into the service of the Bank, he raised the industrial dispute in terms of Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking for directions to the Bank for his absorption. That claim was resisted by the Bank and before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, the workman has examined himself as WW-1 and got marked Exs.W-1 to W-3. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the petitioners / Bank and ten documents Exs.M-1 to M-10, were got marked. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, had returned a finding of fact that the staff training center at Kakinada continued to function till the end of October 1994, till it is merged with the staff training center at Vizianagaram in November 1994. The Labour Court has also found that the Bank itself has taken a benevolent decision to dispense with the system of engaging contract labour in its training centers and hence, has sanctioned, specifically, ten posts to enable absorption of the contract labour employed at the staff training center at Kakinada. It was further noticed by the Tribunal that out of total number of nineteen employees, who worked at their staff training canter at Kakinada, one person has died, while three others got employment elsewhere and hence, the necessity to consider only fifteen individuals for absorption against ten sanctioned posts has cropped up. It was further pointed out that the Bank has sanctioned two posts of Sweeper-cum-General Attendant and two posts of Scavenger-cum-General Attendant and two posts of Service Boy-cum-Water Boy and four posts of Watchman. The case of the Bank is that out of the people interviewed for absorption, six suitable and eligible employees have been absorbed, while none has been absorbed against the posts of Watchman. That is how the 1st respondent could not be absorbed, as he does not have the necessary eligibility for being appointed as a Watchman. I have heard Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the 1st respondent employee. Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy has contended that denial of absorption into service is not an issue, which could become subject matter of adjudicatory process in a dispute raised under Section 2A(2) of the Act and hence, the very dispute raised by the 1st respondent workman is not maintainable. He would next contend that the relief prayed for and granted by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, was beyond the scope of Section 2A(2) of the Act. It was further contended that the Provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act (for short, ‘the Abolition Act’), are not being attracted, inasmuch as ten employees are not being engaged on a continuous basis. It was also contended that the Judgment, which formed the basis for the Award, has since been overruled by the Supreme Court, subsequently, in Air India Corporation Case and hence, the Award is not sustainable. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st respondent is not qualified to be absorbed as Watchman and hence, there is nothing wrong in the action of the Bank in declining to absorb him and the Labour Court could not have issued a directive to absorb the 1st respondent employee. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Sri Vedula Srinivas would submit that the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court that the 1st respondent has worked continuously for nearly four years period is not liable to be disturbed when there was no contra material brought before the Labour Court. It was also contended that when once the Bank itself has realized the necessity to abolish the contract labour system in its training centers generally and in particular at their training center at Kakinada, it is not open for the Bank to raise any questions or disputes in that regard now. It was further contended that the jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute connecting with or arising out of employment vests with the Labour Court. When once the necessary jurisdiction has been exercised to entertain and decide the industrial dispute, it is improper for the Bank to contend that the dispute raised by the 1st respondent as not maintainable, and thus seek to technically defeat the legitimate claims of the workmen. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent employee would further submit that the relief granted by the Labour Court was absolutely on conservative lines, inasmuch as it denied benefits of continuity of service and back wages and it has merely ordered for absorption of the 1st respondent employee and hence, an exercise carried out by the Labour Court appropriately and carefully should not be allowed to be upset. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and to my mind the entire issue centers around the action of the officials of the Bank in denying absorption of the 1st respondent employee. To my mind, all other questions urged before me on behalf of the petitioner are of not of importance, which can be said to go to the root of the matter. The issue has got to be examined from the stand point of view of the Banks action in declining to absorb the 1st respondent in its service, can be correct or not. On behalf of the Bank, Circular No.(Per.3) 6105, dated 01-03-1994, has been got marked as Ex.M-2. That circular exhibit has been placed at Page No.48 of the material paper book filed by the 1st respondent employee. The circular is issued by the General Manager (Operations), Personnel Department, Local Head Office, Hyderabad. Significantly, the circular is titled as under: Subordinate Abolition of Contract Labour STC, Kakinada The circular, therefore, makes the position clear that the Bank has taken a policy decision to abolish the contract labour system at its staff training center, Kakinada. Further, the circular has conveyed the approval of the Chief General Manager, for sanctioning ten posts for the staff training center, Kakinada, so as to consider the contract labour working for the past several years for permanent absorption, subject to their suitability in the interview and other eligibility excepting the maximum age limit, which would be relaxed like in the case of absorption of Banks canteen staff. If the Bank, on it’s own considered it appropriate to abolish the contract labour system at it’s Staff Training Centre, Kakinada and also consequently absorb such as contract labour into it’s service, it is totally unnecessary for me to examine independently, whether the Provisions of the ‘Abolition Act’, are attracted are not. As was noticed supra, the entire question boils down to the simple issue as to whether the case of the 1st respondent workman has been properly considered in terms of the Circular No.(Per.3) 6105, dated 01-03-1994, issued by the Bank, Ex.M-2, or not. A perusal of the circular makes this abundantly clear that the Chief General Manager of the Bank has taken a decision to sanction ten posts to the staff training center at Kakinada, in order to dispense with the contract labour system there at and for permanent absorption of the contract labour, who were working there for the past several years. The posts sanctioned are two posts of Sweeper-cum-General Attendant and two posts of Scavenger-cum-General Attendant and two posts of Service Boy-cum-Water Boy and four posts of watchman. It was not in dispute that six of the contract labour found working at the staff training center, Kakinada, have been absorbed against the remaining six posts sanctioned, but nobody has been absorbed against the four posts of Watchman. To my mind, this is where the petitioners have not properly considered the effect of the circular Ex.M-2. Ex.M-2 conveyed the decision of the Chief General Manager of the Bank sanctioning ten posts in order to consider permanent absorption of the contract labour employed at the staff training center, Kakinada. The thrust supplied by the circular is clear and unambiguous. It has been conceived, in principle, to abolish the contract labour system at the staff training center at Kakinada. Therefore, exclusively, for the staff training center, kakinada, these ten posts have been sanctioned. It is also conceived by the Chief General Manager that sanctioning of ten posts would be sufficient for absorbing the suitable contract labour, who worked there. Therefore, the effect and intendment of this circular is only for consideration of the contract labour employed at the staff training center, Kakinada, for their permanent absorption. A Committee has been constituted for assessing the suitability of the contract labour. As was already noticed supra, out of 19 such contract labour, the scope for consideration has been confined only to 15 persons. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that excepting the age limit, which is also intended to be relaxed to enable such permanent absorption of the individuals, the Committee, which has been constituted to examine the cases of the contract labour, was required to assess their suitability. Unfortunately, the Committee has not found the 1st respondent employee as not suitable for absorption as a Watchman. On the other hand, it had rejected his case for absorption on the ground that he was not an ex- serviceman, inasmuch as the post of Watchman is liable to be filled in the service of the Bank only by ex- servicemen. To my mind, this is an error or an improper exercise carried out by the Committee. The Committee has not been constituted for making recruitment to the regular posts of Watchmen in the Bank. If the Banks policy is to recruit ex-servicemen as Watchmen, that is a normal policy, which will be given effect to and implemented when recruitment of the posts of Watchmen is undertaken. The facts in the instant case called for a different approach. It is reasonable to assume that the Chief General Manager of the Bank is aware of the policy of the Bank to recruit ex-servicemen against the posts of Watchmen at the time when he sanctioned the four posts of Watchman to the staff training center. He has not merely sanctioned the posts, but he sanctioned them in order to enable permanent absorption of the contract labour employed there. Therefore, it must be assumed that the Chief General Manger of the Bank is thoroughly conscious and aware of the general policy of the Bank to recruit ex-servicemen as Watchmen, but in the instant case, he sanctioned four posts of Watchman to the staff training center at Kakinada, exclusively, to enable the contract labour to be absorbed against those posts. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the Chief General Manager of the Bank never intended that these four posts of Watchman sanctioned by him should be filled in by only ex-serviceman in case they are so available amongst the contract labour employed. To my mind, the Chief General Manager has, obviously, intended that four posts of Watchman sanctioned for the staff training center, Kakinada, are intended for absorption of any of the suitable contract labour irrespective of the fact whether he is an ex-serviceman or not. Clearly, purpose and intendment of the circular has not been kept in view by the selection Committee. They have missed the objective and purpose for which the Chief General Manager had sanctioned the four posts of Watchman for the staff training center at Kakinada. Because of this improper and inaccurate understanding of the scope and intendment of the circular Ex.M-2, the resultant action of denying absorption to the 1st respondent has become faulty. Nowhere it has been pleaded on behalf of the Bank that the 1st respondent employee is not fit either due to lack of requisite physical standards or the academic requirements, to be appointed as a Watchman. The only reason for not absorbing him as a Watchman was that he was not an ex-serviceman. Therefore, the action of the petitioners in denying absorption of the 1st respondent against one of the four posts of Watchman sanctioned, is clearly untenable. The Chief General Manager cannot be understood to have sanctioned certain posts, which were not required to be utilized for absorption of the abolished contract labour. Any such approach will be frustrating the very essence of the circular. The benevolence, which the Bank wanted to confer upon the former contract labour by taking such decision and announcing it through Ex.M-2, is unjustly denied because of improper appreciation of its contents by the Committee constituted to absorb them. In view of my conclusion that the selection Committee has not correctly understood the scope and intendment of the decision taken by the Chief General Manager of the Bank in sanctioning ten posts comprising four posts of Watchman also, the ultimate conclusion of the Labour Court does not appear to be a perverse conclusion. In view of the pleadings, the Labour Court has exercised its discretion and left it to the Bank to absorb the 1st respondent employee. So long as the conclusions of the Labour Court cannot be legally characterized as perverse conclusions, it is not for the writ court to substitute its opinion to that of the Labour Court. If, in the given circumstances of fact situation, two opinions or conclusions are liable to be drawn and if one of them has been reached by the Labour Court, it is not for the writ court to substitute the second opinion available to that of the one reached by the Labour Court. In the absence of any material by which the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court can be described as a perverse conclusion, it is certainly not open to substitute my opinion to that of the Labour Court. Therefore, to my mind there are no merits in this writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Thirty days time, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, is granted for the petitioners to comply with the Award passed on 08-11-2000, by the Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.246 of 1998. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Mrk/knk 23rd June 2010