United Bank of India vs Madhab Chandra Koley

Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.—This is an appeal directed against the order dated July 18, 1996 passed by the learned Singly Judge whereby the learned single Judge has directed the Respondents to regularise the service of the Petitioner forthwith preferably within September 30, 1996. It was also ordered that in order to regularise the service, the upper age limit shall be relaxed and this concession shall not be treated as a precedent. Aggrieved against this order the management of the Bank has filed this present appeal. A Division Bench of this Court has stayed operation of the impugned order. This appeal has come up before us for final disposal.

The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Petitioner was appointed by the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Maynaguri Branch, P.O. Mapara, P.S. Barasat, Dist 24-Parganas (North) as a sub-ordinate staff/sub-staff. The Petitioner worked for 240 days in 1986, 1987 and 1988. When the permanent post of sub-staff in the Branch fell vacant on account of one Cash/Peon, Amal Chandra Ghosal, as he was transferred to the head office, the Petitioner was allowed to work in his place continuously from September, 1989 till March, 1991, thereby the Petitioner had fulfilled the criteria of work of 240 days in one year, i.e. 12 consecutive months. The Petitioner therefore approached the Respondents for absorption in the said bank and filed an application. The same was forwarded by the Branch Manager to the Regional Branch. The said application was rejected by the Regional Manager by his communication dated March 12, 1991 (Annexure ''C to the writ petition). Then the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court.

The contention of the writ petitoner in the writ petition was that in view of the settlement arrived at between the bank and the employees wherein it was agreed that the members of the casual staff will be regularised (Annexure ''F'' to the writ petition), he should be regularised. It appears that none appeared on behalf of the Respondents before the Learned Single Judge. However, an affidavit in opposition has been filed by the bank. The stand taken by the bank before the Learned Single Judge was that the Petitioner is not an employee of the bank and as per the circulars dated March 24, 1981 and January 13, 1988 the manager has no authority to engage any temporary staff. it was pointed out that the certificate dated March 1, 1991 given by the branch manager is an unauthorised one and beyond the scope and authority of the branch manager in view of the circulars dated March 24, 1981 and January 13, 1988.

The Learned Single Judge held that since a settlement has been arrived at on October 4, 1989 between the management of the bank and its employees, he issued the aforesaid direction.

In the stay application the Appellant/bank has submitted that the Petitioner was a canteen boy in a canteen managed by the officers, staff and sub-staff of the bank and he is serving tea and food stuff during the office hours. The canteen is managed by the staff only. Therefore, the writ Petitioner was not in employment with the bank. It was further pointed out that by circulars dated March 24, 1981 and January 13, 1988 the Bank has totally prohibited the engagement of outsiders from doing bank s work even for temporary period. It was pointed out that on March 12, 1991 the regional office of the bank received a letter from the branch office dated March 1, 1991 wherein the branch manager certified that the writ Petitioner had served the said branch as subordinate staff in place of one Amal Ghosal and it was further certified that the writ Petitioner had served for 240 days in 12 consecutive months. It is further submitted that on receipt of the above communication from the branch office the Deputy Regional Manager (Administration) immediately wrote a letter to the branch manager dis-approving the action of the branch manager for engaging outsiders in violation of the circulars already issued. It is also pointed out that no appointment was given by the bank to the Petitioner. From the record it transpires that a settlement had been arrived at between the management of the bank and heir workmen on October 4, 1989 wherein it was provided that those employees who completed 240 days in 12 consecutive calendar months in any of the years from July 1, 1981 to February 28, 1988 would be absorbed in regular/permanent vacancies arising on and after October 16, 1989. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, he is not an employee of the bank and he is workjng as a canteen boy.

Therefore, this settlement is not applicable so far as the Petitioner is concerned. There is another circular dated July 14, 1992 by which a scheme was framed for appointment of canteen boys working for canteen run by the. canteen committees of the employees of the bank and in that it was provided that if a canteen boy who had worked for not less than 8 years (uninterrupted) as on the date of the issuance of the circular in any canteen run by the canteen committee of the branch/office of the bank where at least 25 number of employees were posted would be eligible to apply for the post of sub-staff. In terns of this circular any canteen boy who had completed 8 years (uninterrupted) as on the date of the circular could be considered for appointment. It is admitted position that the Petitioner had not completed 8 years of service as canteen boy, therefore, there is no question of his case being considered for appointment. He is not entitled to any benefit flowing from the circular dated July 14, 1992.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Learned Single Judge is not correct and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.

I agree.