IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 35726 of 1998 Between: General Secretary, Dena Bank Employees Union, C/o. Dena Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. 2 General Manager(P) Dena Bank, Head Office, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Colobe, Bombay-400005. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order, Direction or Writ more Particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records in I.D.No. 61/97 and quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad dated 31/08/1998 in I.D.No.61/97 and consequently direct the Respondent Bank to empanel Sri Srinivasa Reddy for absorption in future vacancies in the Respondent-Bank and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SUDHEER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.35726 of 1998 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled against the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.61 of 1997 dated 31.08.1998. The Central Government by its order dated 11.09.1997 referred the following dispute for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal: “Whether the demand of the Dena Bank Employees Union, Hyderabad for empanelment for absorption in future vacancies in respect of Shri Srinivasa Reddy, Casual Peon of Dena Bank, Guntur Branch is justiﬁed? If so, to what relief the said workman is entitled to?” Before the Tribunal claim statement was ﬁled by the petitioner-Union and a counter was ﬁled by the respondent. W.W.1 was examined on behalf of the workman and Exs.W.1 and W.2 were marked, whereas on behalf of the respondent M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M.1 and M.2 were marked. The Tribunal noted that it was evident from the letter written by the Regional Oﬃce to the Branch Manager in November, 1988 that banks were prohibited from engaging outsiders whose names were not in the approved panel for appointment in the bank, that, as per the bipartite settlement dated 25.09.1992 entered into by the management and the employees union, the bank had to empanel only those persons who were engaged as Badli peons and who had worked for more than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 months and that the panel had to be called for from the employment exchange to ﬁll up the posts of sub-staﬀ. The Tribunal noted the contention of the respondent that, as per the bipartite settlement of the year 1992, only cases of persons who worked for 240 days were entitled for regularization. The Tribunal also referred to the structured meeting dated 03.01.1992 wherein Guntur sub staﬀ vacancies were to be ﬁlled up from the Badli panel which was prepared by calling names of eligible candidates from the concerned employment exchanges. The Tribunal referred to the cases of certain other employees whose names were so sponsored and they were appointed as sub-staﬀ and held that, since W.W.1 was not sponsored by the employment exchange and the vacancies of Badli Sepoys had to be ﬁlled up from the Badli panel approved by the regional oﬃce, the question of empanelling W.W.1 did not arise. The Tribunal concluded by holding that since W.W.1 was not sponsored by the employment exchange on the basis of which a list of selected candidates had to be prepared and approved by the regional oﬃce and from out of which list candidates had to be appointed as sub staﬀ, the relief sought for by them for empanelment, absorption and regularization of services could not be granted as appointment of outsiders other than from the panel was prohibited by the head oﬃce as early as in the year 1986. The Tribunal held that the demand of the petitioner-union to direct the respondent to empanel and absorb W.W.1 in future vacancy as a casual peon was not justiﬁed because of the recruitment policy and, as such, W.W.1 was not entitled to the relief sought for. Before this Court Sri Sudheer Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that under the bipartite settlement what was required for empanelment was completion of 120 days of service and, since the respondents have admitted that W.W.1 had completed 121 days, he was entitled to be empanelled. The Tribunal has recorded a ﬁnding that it was only on completion of 240 days of service that an employee was entitled to be empanelled for regularization. The Tribunal has also held that it is only candidates whose names have been sponsored by the employment exchange who are entitled to be so empanelled. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner-union did not even ﬁle a copy of the bipartite settlement. While Sri P.Sudheer Rao would seek further time to place a copy of the bipartite settlement before this Court, I see no justiﬁcation in now acceding to such a request more so since the writ petition relates to the year 1998 and, in certiorari proceedings, this Court is only required to examine whether or not the order of the Tribunal suﬀers from any error apparent on the face of the record. It is only those documents which were placed before the Tribunal which can be looked into by this Court in certiorari proceedings and, since the said bipartite settlement was not marked in evidence, it cannot be said that the conclusion of the Tribunal holding the petitioner to be ineligible for empanelment and regularization is either perverse or suﬀers from any such inﬁrmity as to necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from any angle, the award of the Tribunal does not necessitate interference. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances without costs. ______________ 18.10.2008 GS