1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.312 OF 2008 Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kolhapur ..Petitioner. Vs. Hitendra Baburao Kanetkar and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. M.L. Patel for the Petitioner. Mr. K.S. Bapat i/b Mr. Avinash Fatangare for Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 23rd April, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner is the Kolhapur District Central Co- operative Bank and is registered under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. The Respondents are five employees who were recruited from 1st December, 1998 as 2 Computer Operators. The case of the bank was that the appointments initially were contractual in nature. The Certified Standing Orders applicable to the Petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 inter alia contain provisions in regard to the classification of employees. Standing Order 4 provides that employees shall be classified as (i) permanent employees; (ii) probationers; (iii) temporary employees and (iv) apprentices. These expressions are defined in the Standing Orders as follows : “4(2)(a) “Permanent employees” means an employee who has been appointed as such in writing by the Bank and includes an employee who has completed a total probationary period of six months service with the Bank. (b) “Probationer” means an employee who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy or post and who has not completed six months service in the aggregate in that post. (c ) “Temporary employee” means an employee who has been appointed for a limited period for work which is of an essentially temporary nature, or who is employed temporarily as an additional employee in connection with a temporary increase in work of a permanent nature. (d) “Apprentice” means an employee who is a learner and is paid an allowance during the period of his training provided that no employee shall be classified as 3 an apprentice if he has had training for an aggregate period of six months.” 3. Under Standing Order 5 every employee at the time of his appointment, confirmation, promotion or reclassification has to be given a written order by the bank specifying his appointment, confirmation, promotion or reclassification as the case may be. 4. In a complaint instituted by the Respondents under items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, the Industrial Court by its order dated 17th October, 2007 directed the Petitioner herein to classify the complainant workmen as permanent employees from the date on which they had completed 240 days of service and to pay them the benefits with effect from 1st November, 2003. The Industrial Court noted that the workmen had worked continuously from 1st December, 1998 till 30th December, 2003 for well over five years and were retained in the service of the bank even as of the date of the order of the Industrial Court which was delivered on 17th October, 2007. There is no 4 dispute about the factual position that each of the Respondent workmen has been retained by the bank even until date. The Industrial Court has found that the complainant workmen are eligible and qualified. Moreover, the resolution at Exhibit C-12 showed that the nature of the work which was being performed was of a permanent nature and was liable to increase. The Industrial Court held that the bank was guilty of an unfair labour practice in continuing the workmen for a long period of five years without classifying them on the basis of the provisions contained in the Standing Orders. 5. After the order of the Industrial Court dated 17th October, 2007 a circular was issued by the Managing Director of the Petitioner on 1st November, 2007 recording that on 29th October, 2007 the Board of Directors of the bank had decided to grant permanency to the Respondent workmen with effect from 30th September, 1999 in Class IV against the post of computer operator in the pay scale of Rs.890-3490. This order was, however, made subject to the result of the pending proceedings in this Court. 5 Before this Court there has been no dispute about the factual position that each of the Respondent workmen is duly eligible and qualified; that the workmen have been in continuous service from the date of their initial appointments on 1st December, 1998; that the work which was being performed by the workmen cannot be regarded as temporary in nature as defined in Standing Order 4(2) (c) and that the work which is being performed by the workmen is of an essential and permanent nature. In view of this, there can be no manner of doubt that the bank, in compliance with the provisions of Standing Orders is required to give to the workmen a suitable classification in terms of Standing Order 4. In compliance with the order passed by the Industrial Court the bank as already noted has issued a circular on 1st November, 2007 giving to the workmen the status of permanency subject to the outcome of these proceedings. 6. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Industrial Court since it is evident that the bank does have posts available against which the Respondent workmen can be 6 suitably classified. The work which is being done by the workmen is of a permanent nature. The Petition can therefore be disposed of by taking the circular dated 1st November, 2007 on the record and directing the confirmation of the decision which is reflected therein. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. *****