Case Note & Summary
The writ petition challenged an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai, which had directed reinstatement and regularisation of 45 daily-wage peons engaged by Bank of Baroda at various branches. The workers were engaged informally during the 1990s and discontinued in August 2002 without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They raised industrial disputes leading to Reference No. CGIT-2/64 of 2003. The Tribunal found that each worker had completed over 240 days of continuous service, and termination was in violation of Sections 25F and 25G. It awarded reinstatement with 30% backwages and continuity of service, and further directed regularisation as per a settlement dated 18 March 2008 which provided for absorption of casual peons. The Bank challenged this award principally on the grounds that the workers were back-door entrants without sanctioned posts, that reinstatement was not automatic even if Section 25F was violated, and that regularisation was contrary to Umadevi (3) and beyond the terms of reference. The High Court rejected these contentions. It held that once the Tribunal found illegal termination, reinstatement was a normal consequence, especially since the Bank had replaced the terminated workers with other casual employees, indicating continuing need for work. The Court noted that the workers had served long periods, and the Bank's unilateral actions without complying with statutory provisions amounted to victimisation. On regularisation, the Court clarified that the Tribunal did not grant permanent absorption independently; it only directed regularisation in terms of the existing settlement, which was within its jurisdiction and not hit by Umadevi. The Court also upheld the finding of violation of Section 25G. The writ petition was dismissed, and the award was confirmed in its entirety, with the Bank being directed to implement it expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Retrenchment - Compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination without notice or retrenchment compensation - Daily-wage peons engaged at bank branches for continuous periods exceeding 240 days held to be workmen entitled to protection - Tribunal found termination illegal for violation of Section 25F - High Court held that reinstatement was proper as workers had long service (some up to 15 years) and the Bank replaced them with other casual workers, indicating no abolition of post; mere back-door entry and absence of sanctioned posts did not disentitle relief when termination was in violation of statutory provisions (Paras 14-20). B) Industrial Dispute - Regularisation - Scope of Tribunal's Power - Settlement dated 18 March 2008 providing for absorption of casual/temporary peons/sweepers - Tribunal directed regularisation of services at par with similarly placed workmen as per seniority and in accordance with settlement - High Court held that direction for regularisation as per binding settlement did not exceed reference or contravene Umadevi (3) as it only gave effect to an existing settlement; no independent direction for permanent absorption was made (Paras 21-23). C) Industrial Dispute - Violation of Section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Rule of 'last come first go' - Retrenchment without following seniority principle - Juniors retained while seniors terminated proved victimization - High Court endorsed Tribunal's finding that termination violated Section 25G and vitiated action (Paras 15, 18). D) Industrial Dispute - Backwages - Discretion of Tribunal - Tribunal granted only 30% backwages despite illegal termination - High Court refused to interfere, noting that grant of partial backwages is a matter of discretion and workmen did not challenge the limited award; no ground to enhance or reverse this discretionary relief (Paras 20, 24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal erred in directing reinstatement and regularisation of daily-wage workers employed informally by a nationalised bank, allegedly in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, and whether such directions were contrary to settled legal principles regarding back-door entry and the scope of reference.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The impugned award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 18 June 2014 was upheld. The Bank was directed to reinstate the workmen with 30% backwages, continuity of service, and to regularise their services as per the settlement dated 18 March 2008 and in accordance with seniority. No costs.
Law Points
- compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 mandates notice and retrenchment compensation before termination of a workman who has completed 240 days of continuous service
- violation of Section 25F renders termination void ab initio and entitles workman to reinstatement with backwages unless employer shows abolition of post or exceptional circumstances
- back-door entry or informal engagement does not deprive a workman of protection under the Act once 240 days of service is established
- replacement of terminated casual workers with other casual workers indicates continued need for work and vitiates termination
- Section 25G requires adherence to the rule of 'last come first go' in retrenchment
- and violation thereof amounts to unfair labour practice
- regularisation may be directed by the Tribunal if it is in accordance with a binding settlement applicable to similarly placed workmen
- and such direction is not contrary to the principles in Umadevi (3) when it does not mandate permanent absorption outside the settlement
- grant of partial backwages (30%) is a matter of discretion and does not require interference when workmen do not challenge it.
