IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 1272 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5373/2005 Dated 13/12/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------ M.PREMAKUMAR, KOTHADATHKANDI (H), MAKKADA P.O., KAKKODI, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION -------------------------------------------- 1. LABOUR COURT, CALICUT. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, CALICUT-1. R2 BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE THEOMAS, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1272 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge confirming the order of the Labour Court declining appellant's eligibility for retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the I.D. Act. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. George Thomas appearing for the State Bank of India. The appellant was empaneled by the Bank for engagement in casual work in the Bank. He was given employment as messenger from 1985 onwards. Intermittently he was appointed for several days in several years. However, ever since 1997 the Bank discontinued engagement of the appellant. In 1999 Government referred the appellant's claim for retrenchment compensation to the Labour Court. The specific case of the appellant is that during 1994 he has worked 284 days which qualifies him for retrenchment compensation. However, the Labour Court found that appellant's claim is contrary to the settlement which 2 the Bank had with the representatives of the Unions. This is confirmed by the learned single Judge against which this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. Even though counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1584 of 2002, we do not find any justification to uphold the claim of the appellant that the settlement is against statute and cannot be enforced. Under the settlement, Bank was disabled from engaging persons from outside the panel prepared by it. In fact the settlement provides for giving permanent employment to some of the temporary workers. We find that but for the settlement, the Bank would have been free to select persons of their choice for regular employment and they were not bound to give casual employment to those in the panel. In other words, but for the settlement, appellant would not have been employed for so long a period to entitle him for statutory benefit. we are of the view that larger benefit available under the settlement was permanent employment for some of the persons and if settlement is declared invalid, the same would affect those who are absorbed on regular basis. Since the restriction was imposed on the Bank against employment of casual workers, except from the panel, the 3 Bank gave employment beyond 240 days to the appellant during a year. Unless the settlement provides for any other benefit, in our view, appellant cannot claim benefit under Section 25F based on his employment under the settlement, which took away the freedom of the Bank to employ outsiders on casual basis. We therefore do not find any merit in the claim of the appellant. However, if the Branch of the Bank ever thinks of employing casual workers, we feel, in fairness, they will utilise the service of the appellant in preference to others, as he was found loyal and suitable during the period of employment. W.A. is dismissed with the above observations. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 4