IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16403 of 1991. Date of Decision : February 17, 2009. State Bank of India. .... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, with Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 29.07.1991 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, allowing the application moved by the respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman was not entitled to the benefit of salary as his claim for back wages is not maintainable on the ground that the workman had not completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He contends that the claim of the workman is not covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Versus N. Sundra Money, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 1111. He contends that since the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is not fully covering the claim of the workman, C.W.P. No. 16403 of 1991. therefore, the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act deserves to be rejected. He further contends that the petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of the letter No. PER/68, dated 09.05.1980 which requires the workman to have completed 240 days prior to his date of termination for making him eligible for the claim as made by the workman. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that there was an agreement dated 22.08.1977 between the Management and the Bank Employees' Union, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-P-1, which would govern the claim of the workman. He states that the claim of the workman is covered by clause (1) of the said agreement. Since the date of appointment of the workman i.e. 28.08.1972 and date of termination i.e. 04.05.1974 as well as the workman having completed 295 days during this period is not in dispute, therefore, the claim of the workman that he is entitled to back wages from 16.01.1976 to 19.09.1980 i.e. from the date of Judgment to the date of re-employment. He further contends that application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be maintainable as he would not fall within the protected temporary employees and the right having not been established, therefore, reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act would be necessary for adjudication and settlement of rights of the parties. Not having done so, the present application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be maintainable. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the records of the case. Clause (1) of the agreement dated 22.08.1977, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-P-1, reads as follows :- -2- C.W.P. No. 16403 of 1991. “1. That each of the concerned temporary employees will be paid back wages together with such increments as would have been admissible to him as a temporary employee in the Bank's service for the period upto the date of reinstatement,f romt he date of judgment, namely, 16th January 1976. If the date of last termination of his services was earlier than the 16 January 1976 and from the date of the last termination if it is later than the 16th January 1976.” A perusal of this clause would show that temporary employee will be entitled to back wages together with such increments as would have been admissible as temporary employee in the bank's service for the period from the date of judgment namely 16.01.1976 till the date of his reinstatement. According to this clause if the date of last termination of his services was earlier than the 16.01.1976 and if the date of termination is beyond 19.01.1976 then from that particular date of last date of termination. It is not in dispute that the services of the workman were dispensed with on 04.05.1974 and therefore, the workman would be entitled to the benefit of clause (1) from 16.01.1976 i.e. from the date of Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the abovementioned case. Letter dated 19.05.1980, reliance whereof has been made by counsel for the petitioner to contend that the workman should have completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, has been produced in the Court. A perusal thereof would show that it does not remotely indicate towards what has been contended by the Bank in the present writ petition. The said letter talks about test which was to be held for the temporary employees who had put in 270 days of -3- C.W.P. No. 16403 of 1991. temporary service in clerical cadre during the period from 01.07.1972 to 30.06.1975 or subsequently. It is an admitted position that the workman was appointed on temporary basis on 28.08.1972 and his services were terminated on 04.05.1974 and has worked for 295 days during this period with the Bank. It is also not in dispute that the workman fulfills the requirement of 270 days as mandated in the agreement to be eligible for taking the test and on selection and appointment being entitled to arrears from the date of Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court till his reinstatement. In this view of the matter and in view of the specific clause dealing with the claim of the workman, no fault can be found in the impugned order 29.07.1991 allowing the claim of the respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. No illegality has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order which would call for interference by this Court in the present case. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the agreement dated 22.08.1977 relates to only those temporary employees who are covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Versus N. Sundra Money's case (supra). A perusal of the agreement would show that there is no such qualification attached in the said agreement as it deals with only one set of employees i.e. temporary employees. It does not differentiate between the temporary employees who are covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and other employees. Holding of the test of the temporary employees eligible for participating in the test would further show that there was no distinction made out between the workman who had completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination and others who had completed 270 days within the -4- C.W.P. No. 16403 of 1991. period mentioned in the agreement itself. That being the position, I have no hesitation in holding that the stand which has been taken by petitioner-bank is totally contrary to the agreement itself and the contention as has been raised by the bank is solely with an intention to deprive the workman of his rights which flow from the agreement which the petitioner-bank has entered into with the Union of employees. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Counsel for the respondent-workman has brought to the notice of this Court the statement of counsel for the petitioner before this Court on 24.07.1992 which reads as follows :- “After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that it is not appropriate at this stage to vacate the stay granted by the Motion Bench. However, Mr. Doabia appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner (State Bank of India) undertakes that in case the writ petition is dismissed, the amount awarded by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, to the respondents shall be paid to him alongwith 12% interest from the date the amount became payable.” In view of the above statement, the respondent-workman is held entitled to 12% interest from the date the amount became payable. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 17, 2009. sjks. -5-