1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.758 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.48 OF 2004 Venu Gopal Nair ...Appellant v/s Dena Bank ...Respondents Ms K.N. Samant for Appellant. Mr S.K. Talsaniya, Sr Counsel i/b M/s Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND V.R. KINGAONKAR JJ. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 15th July 2005 passed in writ petition No.48 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By that order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondents challenging the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Mumbai dated 5th June 2003. Admitted fact was that the appellant was in service of the Bank for a period of 93 days from April 1993 to August 1993. His services were terminated. A dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The terms of reference read as under :- Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank in not continuing Mr Venugopal Narayan Nair in the employment of the bank w.e.f. 15.8.1993 and in not absorbing him in the regular vacancy of Sepoy is legal 3 and justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Mumbai made an award dated 5th June 2002 directing the respondent  Bank to reinstate the employee and absorb him permanently as regular Sepoy with 50 % back wages from 15th August 1993. Against the said award, the Bank filed writ petition No.48 of 2004 and after hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition by holding that there was no illegality in termination of the services of the appellant. Similarly, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellant did not have any right to get absorbed in the services of the Bank. 2] The learned counsel appearing for appellant relied clause 20.8 of the settlement to claim that the appellant has right of absorption in services of the Bank. The learned counsel also claimed that the personnel who were employed after the termination of 4 the services of the appellant, were continued in the employment and therefore, the termination of the services of the appellant is illegal. 3] We have heard learned counsel appearing for respondents. In so far as absorption is concerned, the clause of the settlement relied on by the learned counsel appearing for appellant is relevant, it reads as under :- 20.8 A temporary workman may also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a period of three months, during which the Bank shall make arrangements for filling the vacancy permanently. If such a temporary workman is eventually selected for filling up the vacancy, the period of such temporary employment will be taken into account as part of the probationary period. 5 Perusal of the above clause shows that it does not confer any right of absorption on the temporary worker. All that it provides is that if a person gets eventually selected to be appointed on permanent basis, then the period put up by him as temporary employee will be counted as part of probationary period. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that there is no right of absorption conferred on the appellant. So far as the validity of termination order is concerned, even according to the appellant, he was in service only for 93 days and therefore, there is no question of there being any illegality in discontinuation of his employment. 4] Taking overall view of the matter therefore, we do not find any merit in it. Appeal has no substance, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private 6 Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR)