IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No.923 of 2008 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.411/2000 Dated 09/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN OP.NO.411/2000: ---------------------------------------------------------------- CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, GEO TOWERS, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-16 PRESENT ADDRESS: 1ST FLOOR, METRO PALACE OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN OP.NO.411/2000: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. 2. SHRI. P.A.HAMZA, C/O.H.B.SHENOY GENERAL SECRETARY, COCHIN LABOUR UNION 'VATSAL', KRISHNASWAMI ROAD, COCHIN-682 035. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PELADER SMT.K.MEERA. R2 BY ADV.SRI.ASHOK .B.SHENOY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.923 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. A Nationalised Bank, aggrieved by a portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.411 of 2000 dated 9th January, 2008 is before us in this writ appeal. (2). The lis is between a sub-staff and a mighty Bank. Since the conciliation proceedings had failed, the workman had approached the Central Government to refer the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Central Government had referred the following issue for consideration by the Industrial Tribunal. “Whether the action of the management of the Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri.P.A.Hamza with effect from 2-12-1991 and refusing to consider him for re-employment is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from which date?” (3). After receiving the point of dispute, the Industrial Tribunal had registered the dispute as I.D.No.30/1997. By Ext.P3 award, the Industrial Tribunal had answered the point of dispute referred to it by the Central Government in favour of the workman and against the Bank. (4). The Bank, being aggrieved by Ext.P3 award passed in I.D.No.30/1997, was before this Court in O.P.No.411/2000. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 9th January, 2008 has allowed the Original Petition and has set aside the award passed by the Labour Court in WA.No.981/2008 -2- I.D.No.30/1997, and in exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction and also taking into consideration the plight of the poor workman who was agitating his claims before various Forums including the Labour Court, has directed the Bank to permit the workman to appear for the test and interview as and when the Bank calls for test selection process to appoint sub-staff in the Bank notwithstanding the age bar, if any. It is this portion of the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of writ appeal by the Bank. (5). Sri.V.V.Sidharthan, learned counsel appearing for the Bank would vehemently contend that, while allowing the original petition and while setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.30/1997, the learned Judge ought not have made any other observations. (6). We have carefully perused the observations made by the learned Single Judge of which the Bank is aggrieved. The learned Judge has taken firstly into consideration the Sashtri Award (sic. Circular issued by the Bank) which provided that, if an employee has worked in the Bank for a period of 180 days during the period from 1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990 and if he has registered with the Employment Exchange and if his candidature is not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, then such workman will be called to appear in the immediate sub-staff recruitment as and when held. (7). Keeping in view the Circular of the Bank and also keeping in view that the workman had worked in the Bank right from 1986 till 1991, the learned Judge has come to the aid of the workman by directing the Bank to permit the workman to appear for the test and interview as and when the WA.No.981/2008 -3- Bank calls for test selection process to appoint sub-staff in the Bank, notwithstanding the age of the workman. (8). The first and foremost observation made by the learned Single Judge at para 9 of the judgment is only discretionary. Secondly, while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction, the Court has placed reliance on the Circular issued by the Bank. Yet again, the Court has only said that the workman may be given an opportunity to appear for the test and appear for the interview also if and when sub-staff recruitment is made by the Bank, without reference to the age limit of the workman. All these have been done by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the plight of the workman who was fighting the litigation right from 1991. We do not see any error in the observations made and directions issued by the learned Single Judge which would call for our interference. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE MS