IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9926 of 2004(F) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. K.A. BIJU, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, OCHENTHURUTHU, KOCHI-682 508. 2. K.P. DASAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI. ASHOK B. SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT CONTROLLER, EXCHANGE CONTROL DEPARTMENT, KOCHI-682 018. BY SRI. JACOB VARGHESE FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON 28/05/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9926 of 2004(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TABULAR STATEMENT MARKED AS EXT.W2 BEFORE R1 IN I.D.NO.27/1996(C). EXT.P2: AWARD DTD. 29.7.2003 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D.NO.27/1996(C). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ......... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 9926 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the workmen involved in I.D.No.27/96, before the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam. They are challenging Ext.P2 award passed by the Central Government Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication is, “whether the action of the management of Reseve Bank of india in terminating the services of Sri.K.A.Biju and Sri.K.P.Dasan w.e.f. 5.2.94 is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?” The Labour Court entered a finding that the petitioners are not workmen as defined under the Act, apparently, on the basis that they were not employees recruited as per the Bank's Recruitment Procedure and also that they were engaged on daily wages for some specific temporary work. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the management that they were only temporary employees and as per the settlements between the unions and the management, which is Ext.M5 marked in the I.D., such temporary employees on daily wages were to be terminated from service. The Labour Court also noted that the supreme Court had also upheld the validity of Ext.M5 settlement. Accordingly in the W.P.(C).No. 9926 OF 2004 2 award the Labour court held that the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs. Petitioners are challenging that award. The petitioners' contention is that when admittedly the petitioners had completed 240 days of service in an year, their service cannot be dispensed with except after complying with the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Dispute Act, which according to the petitioner is not complied with in the writ petition. The petitioner therefore submits that the award of the Labour court is clearly against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore liable to be set aside. 2. I have considered the contentions of the parties in detail. 3. The management is the Reserve Bank of India. Employment in the Reserve Bank of India is a public employment. All citizens of India who are eligible for being considered for employment in the Reserve Bank of India has a right to apply for employment in the Reserve Bank of India as and when vacancies arise and the Reserve Bank of India proposes to fill up the same. The Reserve Bank of India cannot therefore appoint persons in employment of the Bank without complying with the accepted mode of selection for public employment. Admittedly, the W.P.(C).No. 9926 OF 2004 3 petitioners have not undergone any recruitment process whatsoever. They were originally employees engaged by the contractor employed by the Reserve Bank of India for construction of quarters for employees of the Reserve Bank of India. Later on, that contract was terminated and the Reserve Bank of India themselves took up the construction. At this point of time, the petitioners were also engaged in tilt reading required to be attended thrice a week which would take 2-3 hours a day. Therefore evidently, the work was clearly of a casual nature. Since petitioners have not been recruited after complying with the procedure known to law for engaging persons of public employment, their engagement cannot be taken as a valid appointment in the Reserve Bank of India. In view of the nature of the work, it was only a casual engagement for specified work. Therefore the challenge against Ext.P2 cannot be countenanced. However, as an ex-gratia gesture, the 2nd respondent shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioners as terminal benefits. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/- The words “a fine of” occurring in the last sentence of the W.P.(C).No. 9926 OF 2004 4 judgment dated 28.05.2008 in W.P.(C).No.9926/2004 are deleted as per order dated 07.06.2010 in R.P.No.457/2010 in W.P.(C).No.9926/2004. sd/- Registrar (Judicial)