Telangana High Court
Syndicate Bank vs The Central Govt Industrial … on 6 August, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 3979 OF 2004
O R D E R:
Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.06.2003 passed by
the 1st respondent Tribunal in LCID No.16/2002 directing
reinstatement of the 2nd respondent without back wages,
petitioner Bank is before this Court.
2. The case of petitioner bank is that the 2nd
respondent, who was a temporary employee, filed ID No. 9 of
2000 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Visakhapatnam under Section 2 (A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, challenging his termination from service. The said dispute
was transferred to the 1st respondent where it was re-numbered
as LCID No. 16/2002.
2.1 It is stated that petitioner bank contended before
the Tribunal that due to mechanisation of branches, the need
for Attenders has considerably reduced in branches and offices
in petitioner Bank, as such they are not in a position to absorb
all the temporary attenders who are in the panel. It can absorb
them only as and when the vacancies arise and they had taken
a stand before this Court that it would not recruit any other
2
person to fill up the regular vacancies and only candidates from
the panel of temporary attenders alone wil1 be considered. The
1st respondent ought to have considered the above submissions
and held that the workman was not entitled to any
regularisation or absorption petition respondent.
2.2 The case of petitioner bank is that the 2nd
respondent was initially-engaged in their Bank in 1984 and
since then working as a temporary Attender with break-ups
from time to time and he was engaged on some occasions
depending upon exigencies of work. The Government of India
reviewed the ban on recruitment in the nationalised Banks and
advised the banks to enter into separate settlements with their
respective Unions to regularise the services of the temporary
Attenders. Following the guidelines, the Bank had entered into a
settlement dated 09.04.1996 under Section 12 of the Act with
Syndicate Bank Employees’ Union, as per which, temporary
employees in the Bank were classified into the following
categories:
Temporary Attenders who had worked for more than 246 days in a
consecutive period of 12 months between 1.1.1982 and who were entitled to
the benefits of Section 25 (F) and (H) of the ID Act.
Temporary Attenders who have put in less than 240 days services as
temporary but more than 90 days between 1.1.1982 and 31.12.89.
32.3 The 2nd respondent worked in petitioner Bank for
only 170 days from 1994 to 1988, as such he was placed under
the 2nd panel ie. in the panel of Attenders who had worked for
more than 90 days. Since there are several temporary persons
who are senior to the 2nd respondent in the panel, waiting
absorption in regular vacancies, the 2nd respondent is not
entitled to any permanent appointment and he will have to wait
till his term as per his seniority in the panel, according to
petitioner.
2.4 It is stated that the 2nd respondent was engaged as
temporary Attender in Visakhapatnam Main Branch of
petitioner Bank to perform duties on casual vacancies caused
due to the leave/absence of regular attenders due to
contingency of work. However, the Bank had received
complaints against him from the customers. It was reported
that he obtained standing instructions to transfer funds from
the customer’s account to his account by misrepresenting the
facts and requested the Bank not to honour such letters. The
Bank called for an explanation from the 2nd respondent which
was found not satisfactory. Apart from the above, he was also
served with several letters for his unsatisfactory work. There
4were also complaints against the workman regarding being
irregular in attending to his duties and he was served with
letters for his irregular attendance/unauthorised absence. The
workman was also in the habit of indulging in outside
borrowings beyond his capacity to repay which resulted persons
concerned approaching him while he was on duty. Since the
complaints were serious in nature and had shaken confidence
of the Bank in his integrity and honesty, hence, it was decided
to terminate him. Petitioner Bank, being a public financial
institution and handling money cannot continue such persons.
The 2nd respondent is only a casual employee, as such the
provisions of conducting disciplinary action are not applicable to
him. Therefore, the services of the 2nd respondent were
terminated with effect from 14.06.199 vide order dated
14.06.1999.
3. By order dated 05.03.2004, this Court admitted the
Writ Petition and granted interim stay of all further proceedings
and on filing the affidavit by the 2nd respondent with regard to
his last drawn pay, petitioner shall comply with the mandatory
requirements under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
5
4. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that he was
working as Attender with Petitioner Bank since 1984 and was
appointed on regular vacancy with effect from 19-12-1994,
however, he was relieved from service on 14-6-1999 without
assigning any reason. There was no departmental enquiry
conducted and he was drawing a wage of Rs.600/- plus special
allowances of Rs. 115/- and D.A. at the time of his dismissal.
Therefore, he approached the Management of petitioner and the
union to reconsider the decision of dismissal from services and
to take him back into service with all benefits and he also got
issued Notice which was acknowledged on 27-12-1999 by the
Petitioner management. However, they have not responded to
the notice nor reinstated him into service. Hence, he raised the
Dispute.
4.1 It is stated, the Learned Judge passed the
impugned Award observing that no enquiry was conducted and
Management did not try to prove allegations against the 2nd
respondent except examining MW1; from Ex.W7, it is clear
that the 2nd respondent was dismissed after having putting 12
years of service and retrenchment compensation is also not
properly calculated. Hence, set aside the dismissal order dated
6
14-6-1999 and directed his reinstatement on or before
1-9-2003 on his last drawn with all attendant benefits (except
back wages) and one month pay in lieu of notice Rs.3333.36
and retrenchment compensation of Rs.6666.72 paise shall be
retained by the 2nd respondent for the compensation in lieu of
wages for the period from 15-06-1999 till the date of
reinstatement. His entire service with effect from 13-05-1987
including this period, shall be calculated for the terminal
benefits only. If the petitioner is not reinstated on or before
1-9-2003, he shall be entitled to wages from that date.
4.2 Consequent on the Award, it is stated, the 2nd
respondent was not reinstated in service or at least paid wages
as directed. However, his Juniors were promoted and became
permanent also. It is difficult for this respondent to survive
without wage and employment as his services were illegally
terminated without any enquiry and in utter violation of
principles of natural justice and his family is depending on him.
5. Ms. Swetha Pamidi, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the Petition filed by the 2nd Respondent was not
maintainable as the same was filed under the Andhra Pradesh
Amendment Act 32/1987 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7
The Amendment was enacted by the State Government, as
such, it can only bind the employers and the employees working
in the establishments for which, the appropriate Government is
the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. However, the
Respondent No. 2 was engaged as a Temporary Attender in a
Nationalised Bank for which, the appropriate Government is the
Central Government, hence, the 2nd respondent could not have
filed his claim under the Amendments made by the State
Government. The above objection was not answered by the
Tribunal.
5.1 Further, it is contended, the 2nd Respondent
bypassed conciliation proceedings and directly approached the
Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Act
(Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 32/1987), hence, the Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground also. This Court
in Nutrine Confectionary Co. Ltd. v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh 1, held that “even in the absence of these words
specifically in the amendment introduced by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, still the workman has to approach the Labour Court
only if the conciliation proceedings fail as sub-section (2) of 2-A
1
1999 (6) ALT 87 (D.B.)
8
of the Act starts with a non-absente clause namely
‘notwithstanding anything in Sec. 10‘. In other words, it
excludes only Section 10 and not other provisions of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 2-A(2), workman can approach the
Labour Court directly only when conciliation proceedings fail.”
In view of the same, when the Petition itself is not maintainable
before the Labour Court, the Order passed therein cannot be
valid in the eye of law.
5.2 As per the guidelines issued by the Central
Government, permanent employees could only be recruited from
candidates sponsored by the employee exchange or on
compassionate appointment of deceased employees or from
candidates who are already working on a temporary basis. In
view of the above restrictions, Petitioner Bank would engage the
services of temporary Attenders from time to time as the
Petitioner Bank was not automated during that time and thus,
required such services rendered by temporary Attenders to
ensure smooth functioning. The temporary Attenders would be
called when the regular Attenders were on leave and/or due to
temporary increase in workload.
9
5.3 Learned counsel submits that the 2nd Respondent
was never appointed as a regular employee as alleged and the
certified copy of the Panel of Temporary Attenders for
Visakhapatnam District clearly shows that he was working as a
temporary employee until his termination. It is further
contended that complaints were submitted to the effect that the
2nd respondent was misusing all his position as a temporary
employee in the bank for unlawful personal gains.
5.4 It is submitted that engagement of employees was
subject to Sastry Award as notified by the Ministry of Labour.
As per Clause 522, a temporary employee may be terminated
after giving notice of 14 days. The said Award does not mandate
conducting enquiry against a temporary employee. In the
present case, Respondent No. 2 was paid in lieu of 14 days’
Notice as recorded by the Tribunal as well in its Order. Thus, it
cannot be stated that termination was illegal.
5.5 It is also argued that it is settled position of law that
regularisation of employment can only be as per the guidelines
and policy issued for that purpose and no employee can claim it
as a matter of right. In this regard, reliance can be placed on
10
Union of India v. Ilmo Devi 2 and B. Lakshmi v. General
Manager, Canara Bank (Writ Petitions No. 2140, 2143 and
2144 of 2022).
6. Sri John Mathew Galeb, learned counsel
representing Sri K.V. Simhadri, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent submits that petitioner Bank being a public-sector
undertaking, has to follow the procedure and rules prescribed
by the Central Government in respect of recruiting the staff in
all cadres. So far as the Attender cadre is concerned, they will
have to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange or a
compassionate appointment of the dependants of the deceased
employees etc. or from the candidates who are already working
in the Bank on temporary basis for a long period. Even
according to petitioner, if a person is appointed who is working
for a long period on temporary basis, they will have to be
considered. In view of the ban, there is no recruitment in the
Bank and it is also admitted fact of engaging temporary
Attenders for a long period in the regular vacancies in view of
increase in work load. Therefore, the services of this respondent
2
(2021) 20 SCC 290
11
is all the more required as there is a regular work load and he
has been working for more than a decade, hence, his services be
regularized, as directed.
6.1 According to learned counsel, the 1st respondent
appreciated Law and also facts and came to conclusion in
accordance with Law, as such, the Award warrants no
interference.
7. At the beginning, it has to be seen that the Dispute
raised by the 2nd respondent is not maintainable before the
Tribunal for it was filed under the provisions of the Amendment
Act 32 of 1987 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said
Amendment was carried out by the State Government which
binds only employers / employees working in the estalsihment
for which the appropriate Government is the ‘State’. In this
case, the 2nd respondent was engaged in a nationalised bank for
which the appropriate Government is the Central Government.
Though petitioner bank had taken objection as to the
maintainability, the Tribunal filed to consider the same.
8. Further, the 2nd respondent directly approached the
Tribunal without exhausting the conciliation proceedings. This
Court in Nutrine Confectionary Co.Ltd.’s case (supra) clearly
12
and categorically held that under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, a
workman can approach the Labour Court directly when
conciliation proceedings fail. In this case, apparently, the 2nd
respondent has not availed the said proceedings and directly,
approached the Tribunal.
9. Apart from the above aspect, from a perusal of the
material on record, it is to be seen that petitioner bank received
complaints from one of their customers stating that the 2nd
respondent misrepresented them and tried to transfer money
into his own account. So also other complaints regarding
unsatisfactory work, being irregular in attending to his duties
and taking unauthorised absences, borrowing more than what
he could repay, hence, the lenders would approach him while he
was on duty and lenders also approached the bank and asked
the management to repay the loan amount. In that regard,
petitioner issued charge sheet dated 05.06.1998 and as the 2nd
respondent submitted unsatisfactory explanation, termination
order dated 14.06.1999 was issued. Further, the 2nd
respondent absented himself for one month between 08.12.1997
to 22.01.1998 after the complaint of Sri G. Prakash Rao was
received; the Tribunal also recorded that the said absence gains
13
significance. The 2nd respondent admitted commission of the
acts mentioned in the complaint during the cross-examination,
however, the Tribunal directed the bank to reinstate the 2nd
respondent as no enquiry was conducted, is not at all
acceptable.
10. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for
petitioner, it is settled law that regularisation of employment
can only be as per the guidelines and policy issued for that
purpose and no employee can claim it as a mater of right. The
Bank entered into a settlement dated 09.04.1996 for absorption
of temporary employees as regular employees. As per
settlement, temporary employees who worked for more than 240
days between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989 shall be given priority
over those who worked more than 90 days but less than 240
days during the same period. In this case, the 2nd respondent
worked only for 170 days in the given period, hence, he cannot
be given priority over other employees who worked for a period
longer than him, hence, he is not entitled to be given priority in
appointment.
11. The other contention of the 2nd respondent is that
he was not paid any retrenchment compensation during his
14
termination. However, a perusal of the Award at page 17 shows
that retrenchment compensation in lieu of 14 days’ notice
period as Para 522 of the Sastry Award was paid to the 2nd
respondent vide Ex.M4 which shows that he was given one
month in lieu of notice retrenchment compensation of 15 days
wages for every completed year of service since 1994
(Rs.1666.68 x 4) amounting to Rs.6666.72 and salary from 5th
February to 14.06.1999. In view of the same, it cannot be stated
that the termination was illegal.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
opinion that Award impugned is liable to be set aside.
13. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting
aside the Award dated 27.06.2003 on the file of the 1st
respondent Tribunal. No costs.
14. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
————————————-
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
06th August 2025
ksld