IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.334 of 2009 STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, DISTRICT- PATNA, THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR) ……………………. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, NEW DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA-800 001 4. SURESH THAKUR, SON OF LATE PATI THAKUR 5. RAM NANDAN PRASAD, S/O SHRI SADDAT PRASAD 6. JOGENDRA RAJAK, S/O SHRI KAPIL DEO RAJAK 7. RAJ KISHORE SHARMA, SON OF SHRI SACHIDANAND SHARMA 8. RAJU PRASAD, SON OF SHRI SITA RAM SAO 9. OM PRAKASH YADAV, SON OF SHRI ISHWAR DAYAL YADAV 10.BINAY MISHRA SON OF SHRI SHELO RAM MISHRA 11.SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD, S/O SRI SUKHDAYAL PRASAD 12.SHIVA SHANKAR PAL, S/O SRI RAM NATH BHAGAT 13.MD. SULEMAN, S/O MD. IBRAHIM 14. DINESH PRASAD SINHA, S/O SHRI MATHURA PRASAD 15. JAYSHREE YADAV S/O SHRI RANAYAN YADAV ALL CARE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEE UNION (BIHAR STATE) IST. FLOOR, MOHINI MARKET, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA-1. 16. STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEE UNION ( BIHAR STATE) REGISTERED TRADE UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT IST. FLOOR, MOHINI MARKET, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA- 800 001 17. SMT. ANJU DEVI, W/O LATE KANHAI PRASAD 18. SUSHMA KUMARI (MINOR) D/O LATE KANHAI PRASAD 19. BABLI KUMIARI ( MINOR ) , D/O LATE KANHAI PRASAD 20. PRAKASH KUMR(MINOR) S/O LATE KANHAI PRASAD ALL LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.8 OF THE WRIT PETITION, NAMELY KANHAI PRASAD, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O VIJAY KUMAR, MOHALLA MAKHANPUR, KURMI TOLI, P.O. GULJARBAGH, PATNA-800 007 UNDER THE NATURAL GURDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER, ANJU DEVI………………………………….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 5 15-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. Petitioner seeks review of a Division Bench Judgment and Order dated 29-4-2009 passed in L.P.A. No. 1461 of 2001 on the ground that attention of the Division Bench was not drawn to the fact that Circular of the Bank bearing PER No.77 of 1984 ( Ext.M/4) dated 17-5-1984 in respect of the scheme under which the private respondents claim for their regularization has already elapsed. From the discussions in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order under review it is evident that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal held the concerned workmen entitled to claim and receive the relief of regularization but such relief was diluted by this Court only upon a consideration of the fact that absorption under the circular under normal circumstances, is subject to a selection process and the management has certain discretion in the matter. On merits this Court did not differ with the findings and conclusion of the Tribunal but the relief given by the Tribunal for regularization with effect from 5-3-1986 and for fixing up pay and seniority from that date was interfered with to the extent 3 that the direction for regularization and its consequential benefits would stand substituted by a direction to consider the cases of the concerned workmen for regularization with effect from 5-3-1986 or any other justifiable date in terms of then existing circular noticed above dated 17-5-1984. At the end of paragraph-10 of the order under review this Court indicated that;- “ While considering the cases of the concerned workmen for absorption or regularization in terms of the aforesaid circular, the concerned authority of the State Bank of India must apply same standard and must give same treatment to the concerned workmen as may have been given to the other employees of the Bank who were considered for absorption/regularization in the year 1986 under the said circular.” In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that then existing circular dated 17-5-1984 has subsequently lapsed, in our view, would have no effect upon the decision at hand under review. It is only for applying the same standard which was applied to other workmen that a reference has 4 been made to the said circular. If the argument on behalf of petitioner is accepted then it would amount to depriving the workmen of the benefits of judgment of the Tribunal without any justified reasons. Hence, we find no merit in this review application. It is accordingly dismissed . ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J) Naresh