IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12187 of 2006 SHEO SHANKAR TIWARY Versus THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ras Bihari Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate Mr. Sushila Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate ------------ 6 18.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Bank of India. Petitioner is now a retired employee of the respondents State Bank of India. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not giving him the benefit of a permanent employee from the date of his initial appointment which is said to be somewhere in the year 1969. The prayer of the petitioner has a background and the relief being claimed is supposed to be based on the award given by the Industrial Tribunal No.2 of Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 158 of 1986 and subsequent decision rendered by the High Court on the said award in C.W.J.C. No. 5931 of 1989 which is contained in Annexure – 3. Petitioner entered the service of the Bank in the year 1969 on a temporary basis on the post of Cashier at Bihta Branch of the Bank. He worked in that capacity for a while but he had to pass a special test for - 2 - absorption under the Bank on a permanent basis for the post. Admitted position is that in the examination held on 20.01.1974, petitioner failed, thereafter he avoided appearing in any of the examinations held thereafter. It was in this background that the respondents decided to remove him from service. The removal became the reason for the reference which came to be made by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, while exercising power under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue to the reference was whether the action of the Management in terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.05.1984 was justified, if not what is the relief? The background to the dispute has been dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal held the termination of the petitioner to be illegal for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But the tribunal significantly did record that the workman cannot be given permanent appointment in the bank without passing of the test or the said examination. Respondents were directed therefore, to give him an opportunity to pass the said test before the benefit of permanent appointment under the Management could be granted to him. In other words, it was a contingent order - 3 - passed in favour of the petitioner. Respondents State Bank of India tried to challenge the validity of the said award by filing C.W.J.C. No. 5931 of 1989, but the High Court refused to interfere with the same by holding that the findings rendered by the Tribunal need not be interfered with because there was no material irregularity in the said award. Respondents State Bank of India thereafter held an examination for the petitioner which the petitioner is said to have passed some time in the year 1999, almost 10 years after the award but within a year of the decision of the High Court. A communication was made with the petitioner on 29.05.1999 contained in Annexure – 4. Certain terms and conditions were offered to the petitioner for appointment as a permanent employee of the Bank, the petitioner responded to the same and accepted the terms therefore the status as well as the other benefits therefrom accrued and he continued to work on the post of Cashier and has now superannuated. By way of present writ application he wants to be treated as a permanent employee of the Bank from the date of his initial appointment supposedly based on the basis of the award rendered by the Tribunal since the Tribunal ordered benefit of past salary and wages - 4 - from the date of his retrenchment. According to his interpretation, now every benefit will accrue to him from the date of his initial entry into service. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents seriously disputes the relief and the claim made by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is trying to read something more in the award than the award had ordered. His further submission is that the tribunal had also categorically held that the petitioner could not claim benefit of a permanent employee till he passes the test in question. This was the special concession which was made in favour of the petitioner by virtue of judicial direction. If that concession was extended by the Management and the petitioner has thereafter passed the test in 1999 and consequent thereto accepted all the conditions which was given to him in terms of Annexure – 4 that too in the year 1999, then there may not be occasion for this Court now to give a new interpretation to the award and extend a new benefit which was never given or claimed by the petitioner at the time when the 1999 offer was made to him. The court had occasion not only to go through the award, the decision of the High Court contained in Annexure – 3 and the consequential order passed in - 5 - Annexure – 4 and seems to be in agreement with the respondents that a kind of new benefit is sought to be claimed and demanded by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him which was not even asserted and claimed at the time when he was given the permanent employee status as a fresh appointment on the substantive post of Cashier in the year 1999 after passing of the examination. The writ application in this regard seems to be totally misplaced and requires no indulgence by this Court in the given factual and legal background, more so when the petitioner has already retired, accepted all his dues and settlement arising out of superannuation. The writ application is dismissed, as being devoid of merit. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)