High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 5002/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
The brief fact leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that t 3. he members of the petitioner association had been working as Tea Boys in differe nt branches of erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd., which was taken over by the respo ndent Bank in terms of the said notification dated 28.8.1990. It is the case of the petitioner that since all the employees of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank had been taken over as regular employees of the Central Bank with effect from 14.7. 1990, their members should also be deemed to be regular employees of the respond ent Bank with effect from the said date i.e. 14.7.1990. In this connection, the petitioner has also referred to the judgment and order dated 25.11.1992 passed b y this Court in the writ petitions being Civil Rule No, 2232/1991 and 3374/1991 followed by Division Bench judgments dated 8.7.1993 passed in W.A. No. 24/1993 a nd 29/1993.
Arguments
Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.C . Das, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. This writ petition filed by an Association namely Purbanchal Bank (Now C 2. entral Bank of India) Tea Boys Association espousing the cause of 31 employees f or a direction to the respondent Bank to regularize the services of the Tea Boys with effect from 14.7.1990 as per the Annexure-C notification dated 28.8.199.
Decision
4. Alleging non-implementation of the aforesaid judgment and orders, the pe titioners had filed another writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1733/1995, which was disposed of by order dated 17.5.2001 with the direction to implement the pro visions of Clause 10 and 11 of the aforesaid notification. The petitioner had al so filed contempt case being COP(C) No. 498/2003, which was disposed of by order dated 24.5.2004 providing that the respondent Bank would pass an order in terms of the order dated 17.5.2001, by which the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1 733/1995 was disposed of. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid developments, the respondent Bank has made the Annexure-I communication to the Secretary of the petitioner’s association holdi ng the particular view of the matter in terms of which the members of the associ ation, whose have been absorbed with effect from 8.7.1993 i.e. from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above are not entitled to get reg ularization of services with effect from 14.7.1990. Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sinc 6. e in terms of the aforesaid notification all the erstwhile employees of the erst while Purbanchal Bank became the employees of the respondent Bank from a particu lar date, the absorption/ regularization of the services of the members of the p etitioner association could not have been deferred to a future date. According t o him, the particular date having been specified in the said notification, the r espondent Bank was obliged to absorb/regularize their services with effect from the said date only and not any other date. 7. Mr. N.C. Das, learned Sr. Counsel, representing the respondent Bank, on the other hand, submits that unlike the other employees of the erstwhile bank, t he members of the petitioner being the casual employees they cannot claim retros pective regularization /absorption. He further submits that regularization of se rvices being a policy decision of the respondent Bank, the petitioner cannot har p upon the said notification so as to claim retrospective regularization. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea rned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on recor d. My findings and conclusions are as follows: 9. The first writ petitions being Civil Rule No. 2232/1991 and 3374/1991 we re filed claiming minimum wages. It was the plea of the Tea Boys that they were entitled to minimum wages as per the provisions of law. Repeling the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent Bank that they were not the employees of the respondent Bank but were the employees of a privately managed canteen, it was h eld that although the Tea Boys were working as casual employees, but nonetheless they were employees of the respondent Bank. It was in such circumstances, direc tion was issued for payment of minimum wages to the Tea Boys as per the provisio ns of Minimum Wages Act, 1949 with time to time revisions. On perusal of the jud gment and order dated 25.11.1992 what is seen is that the Tea Boys working in th e bank were not recognized as regular employees. There is categorical finding of the learned Single Judge that they were only casual workers of the respondent B ank. Thus even on the date of the judgment i.e. 25.11.1992, the Tea Boys were th e casual employee of the respondent Bank. On appeal, the Division Bench held that there could not have been any di 10. rection for payment of minimum wages to the canteen boys prescribed under the Mi nimum Wages Act, 1948. However, direction was issued to implement the provisions of Clause 10 and 11 of the scheme under the aforesaid notification. In the Divi sion Bench judgment also, it was recognized that the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank h ad a category of employees, though not regular employees, consisting of Tea Boys or Canteen Boys. Nowhere in the judgment, there is any direction to regularize their services with effect from 14.7.1990, which was the date for absorption of the regular employees of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank. 11. By Annexure-E order dated 30.4.1994, the respondent Bank absorbed Cantee n Boys in the bank with effect from 8.7.1993 i.e. the date on which the Division Bench judgment was delivered. It is this date, which did not find favour of the Tea Boys. According to them, their absorption/regularization in the bank should be at par with other regular employees who had been absorbed with effect from 1 4.7.1990. 12. Unlike the other regular employees of the Purbanchal Bank who were absor bed in the Central Bank of India with effect from 14.7.1990, the Tea Boys repres ented by the present petitioners were the casual employees. This is precisely th e reason as to why a submission was made towards disposal of the aforesaid conte mpt case being COP(C) No. 498/2003 that Tea Boys were entitled to get regulariza tion of their services atleast from 1991 if not with effect from 14.7.1990. The said submission was made on account of the filing of the writ petitions being Ci vil Rule No, 2232/1991 and 3374/1991 in 1991. Thus the petitioners were also awa re that they were not entitled to get regularization of their services with effe ct from 14.7.1990. 13. Absorption of regular employees in the respondent Bank upon merger of th e Purbanchal Bank is altogether different than that of regularization of service s of the casual employees who had been working in the Purbanchal Bank. In terms of clause 10 and 11 of the notification referred to above, regular employees of the Purbanchal Bank stood absorbed with the respondent Bank with effect from 14. 7.1990. In the said notification, there is no whisper about the casual employees of the erstwhile Bank. It is because of the finding recorded in the aforesaid j udgment, Tea Boys were deemed to be casual employees of the erstwhile Bank. If t hat be so, it was for the respondent Bank to decide as to from which date their services should be regularized. While in the case of regularization of regular e mployees of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank, it was the case of absorption, but in the case of casual employees, it was a case of regularization of their services which was made effective from 8.7.1993. 14. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned decisi on of the respondent Bank. It is well settled law that regularization of service is normally prospective and cannot be retrospective. The scheme that was formul ated by the respondent Bank was for absorption of the regular employees of erstw hile Purbanchal Bank and not for regularization of the services of the casual em ployees, which was a matter to be decided by the absorbing bank i.e. the respond ent Central Bank of India. The particular decision to regularize the services of the casual employees having been arrived at by the respondent Bank, as per its sound discretion, the same cannot be interfered with falling back on the notific ation referred to above. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly, it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost s.