Satish Kumar vs Indian Overseas Bank and Another

A.K. Sikri, C.J.—Services of the appellant who was engaged as a Daily Wage Worker, were terminated. The appellant raised an Industrial Dispute challenging the termination, primarily on the ground that before terminating his services, compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the Act'') was not done, inasmuch as the appellant was not paid any retrenchment compensation or notice, though, he had rendered service of more than 240 days in preceding 12 months prior to termination of his services. The reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, with the following terms:-

Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Satish Kumar w.e.f. 2.11.1995 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief, the said workman is entitled.

This issue is decided in his favour and on that basis, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, ordered his reinstatement in service. However, while doing so, the Tribunal also found that the persons junior to the appellant had been regularised in service and on that basis gave direction to the respondent/management to regularise the services of the appellant within a reasonable time and protecting his services as well.

The bank/management challenged the aforesaid award by filing the writ petition in this Court.

The learned Single Judge has maintained the award insofar as it held termination of the appellant to be illegal and unjustified. The award directing reinstatement of the appellant has also been upheld. However, the learned Single Judge, at the same time, found that the direction given by the learned Tribunal regarding regularisation and seniority is without jurisdiction and no such direction could be given. Relevant portion of the order of learned Single Judge in this behalf reads as under:-

So far as the observation of the Tribunal re: regularization and seniority are concerned, I harbour serious doubt. The concept of regularization is normally beyond the place of the jurisdiction of the labour court. Seniority is a service law concept which has relevance only in promotion. If the workman did not hold a regular or permanent post with the Bank, there can possibly be no case or prima facie claim for promotion to a higher post from feeder category. I would, therefore, modify the award and delete from it reference to regularization and seniority. However, inter se seniority with reference to dates of appointment amongst daily wagers would be maintained for whatever it might be worth. The Tribunal has not given continuity of service. Therefore, no further financial burden of increments, notional or otherwise etc. would fall or arise. At the end of the day, reinstatement is maintained for apparent violation of Section 25F, in view of the law laid down in Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, The workman would be reinstated to the original post, forth-with.

For the foregoing reasons I dismiss the writ petition with the above observations finding no merit in it.

It is against this part of the order of the learned Single Judge qua regularisation and seniority, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that once the appellant was reinstated in service, he had a right to be considered for regularisation while his juniors had been regularised. Whether the appellant can claim regularisation or not, is not for us to decide in these proceedings. We find that the order of the learned Single Judge on this aspect does not call for any interference. We have already extracted the terms of reference on which the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. That pertains to the illegality and justification of termination of services of the appellant. The Tribunal had no right or power or jurisdiction to travel beyond the terms of reference. The issue regarding regularisation or alleged seniority of the appellant was not before the Tribunal as there was no reference qua this aspect. Therefore, order to this extent passed by the learned Tribunal is rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge and while doing so, the learned Single Judge has referred two judgments of the Supreme Court which are mentioned in the portion extracted above. It is trite that the appellant could seek regularisation of his service only on the post on which he was working at the time of reinstatement. Admittedly, he was only a Daily Wage Worker, therefore, he could be reinstated in that post, more-so, when the termination is held to be illegal only on technical ground as the respondents failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In case, the appellant feels that after reinstatement, he has a right to seek regularisation as well, it will be open to the appellant to stake such claim in appropriate proceedings.

Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.