In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court by the State Bank of India (SBI) (petitioner) to assail an award dated 13-12-2004 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Shail Jain partly allowed the appeal while setting aside the direction of regularisation and directed SBI to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent.
The dispute arose from the functioning of the State Bank of India branch at Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, where the respondent was engaged in duties between 06-07-1994 and 31-05-1995. SBI claimed that the branch lacked adequate water supply and the respondent merely supplied water on a per-bucket basis, submitting monthly bills, and received occasional conveyance reimbursements for delivering urgent papers. Conversely, the respondent disputed this, claiming he was engaged as a messenger performing outdoor assignments, and that his services were illegally terminated on 01.06.1995 without notice or retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Aggrieved, the respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi. Since the conciliation proceedings failed, a failure report was submitted before the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. Thereafter, the Central Government referred the dispute to CGIT, which held that the water bills were a device to camouflage the true nature of employment and that the respondent performed messenger duties. It was found that the respondent completed more than 240 days of service and that his termination violated Section 25F of the ID Act. Consequently, CGIT directed the regularisation of the respondent’s services from 01-06-1995 with continuity, but without back wages.
SBI argued that no employer-employee relationship existed with the respondent, that the Branch Manager lacked appointment authority, and that the appointment was de hors regular procedures.
The Court stated that its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and not appellate. It was noted that the foundational question for consideration was whether the respondent falls within the ambit of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The Court said that the absence of a formal appointment letter or written contract does not, by itself, exclude a person from the ambit of the provision.
The Court examined the contemporaneous internal branch records, including authorized conveyance vouchers showing work done in the Record Department and outdoor assignments, which confirmed an implied contract of service with the respondent and his status as a workman under Section 2(s). The Court also agreed that the recurring assignments and monthly banker cheque disbursements established that the Respondent rendered service meeting the statutory requirement of 240 days. Considering SBI’s own case, the Court stated that water supply to a functioning bank branch is a recurring operational requirement arising on every working day and that an arrangement for water supply extending to nearly eleven months indicated regular and recurring presence connected with day-to-day functioning of the branch.
The Court stated that the object underlying Section 25B of the ID Act is to ensure that the protection embodied in Section 25F of the Act is not defeated by an unduly technical or rigid approach to proof of continuous service, where the material on record otherwise discloses sustained and regular engagement during the relevant statutory period. It was noted that CGIT’s finding that the discontinuance of the respondent’s engagement was affected in violation of Section 25F was borne out from the material on record and did not warrant interference.
However, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in granting regularisation, noting that mere completion of 240 days or violation of Section 25F does not confer a vested right to permanent absorption, particularly de hors the constitutional scheme of public employment and without a sanctioned post. It was stated that CGIT erred in treating reinstatement consequent upon an illegal termination as equivalent to regularisation in service and that the direction of regularisation, in absence of any specific claim for such relief as well as beyond the scope of the reference, exceeded the limits of CGIT’s adjudicatory jurisdiction. Hence, the Court held that the direction of regularisation in the impugned award could not be sustained.
Considering that more than three decades had elapsed since the discontinuance of the eleven-month engagement, the Court set aside the regularisation order and partly allowed the writ petition while substituting the relief with a direction to SBI to pay the respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement within eight weeks.
