1 wp5615.07+.J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5615 OF 2007
The Wardha Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Madhao Bhawan, Dhantoli, Wardha
through its Chief Executive Officer. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] The Wardha District Cooperative
Banks Employees Union, through its
General Secretary Office at C/o The Wardha
District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Wardha.
2] The Member,
Industrial Court, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO.4872 OF 2010
The Wardha District Cooperative
Banks Employees Union, through its
General Secretary Office at C/o The Wardha
District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Wardha. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] The Wardha Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Madhao Bhawan, Dhantoli, Wardha
through its Chief Executive Officer.
2] The Member,
Industrial Court, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::
2 wp5615.07+.J.odt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, Advocate for Petitioner in
WP 5615/2007.
Shri S.D. Thakur, Advocate for Respondent 1 in WP
5615/2007.
Shri N.H. Joshi, AGP for Respondent 2/State in
WP 5615/2007.
---
Shri S.D. Thakur, Advocate for Petitioner 1 in WP
4872/2010.
Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, Advocate for Respondent 1 in
WP 4872/2010.
Shri N.H. Joshi, AGP for Respondent 2/State in
WP 4872/2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 06.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 03.05.2019 COMMON JUDGMENT:
1] Heard Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.D. Thakur, the learned counsel for the respondent 1 and Shri N.H. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent 2/State. 2] These petitions which emanate from BIR Case 10 of 2003 instituted under section 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ('BIR Act') by the Wardha District Cooperative ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 3 wp5615.07+.J.odt Bank Employees Union, Wardha ('Union) are heard together and decided by this common judgment.
3] The Wardha Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., ('Bank') is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of banking and is concededly covered under the BIR Act.
4] The Union is the representative Union under the BIR Act.
5] The Union contends that the Bank employees 69 persons as Daily Deposit Collectors ('DDC') whose service conditions are governed by the Model Standing Orders framed under the BIR Act. The Union contends that the DDCs are in continuous service of the Bank from their respective dates of appointments and the work performed is manual, clerical and skilled akin to the duties discharged by the Head Clerk. The Union contends that DDCs have completed 240 days continuous service and are paid commission of 3% of the amount of deposit collected. The Union contends that the commission of 3% was reduced by the Bank to 2.5% without issuing notice to the Union. ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::
4 wp5615.07+.J.odt The Union issued approach notice dated 31.10.2003 seeking change in the service conditions of the DDCs, which went unheeded. In this backdrop, the Union approached the Labour Court seeking a direction that the DDCs be made regular and permanent and be paid wages at par with wages paid to the Head Clerk.
6] The Bank denied employee - employer relationship. The Bank specifically contended that the DDCs are neither employees of the Bank nor the members of the Union. The certified standing orders are not applicable to DDCs. The working hours of the DDCs are not controlled or regulated by the Bank. The DDCs are not required to obtain sanction to the leave. The nature of work performed by the DDCs is not clerical and all that is expected of the DDCs is to collect the amount from the customers and to deposit the same in the Bank. 7] The Bank further contended that regular staff is engaged by following the prescribed norms and due procedure of selection. The DDCs are not required to discharge the work daily or for that matter for any particular number of days in a week or ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 5 wp5615.07+.J.odt in a month. The Bank did not dispute the reduction of commission on deposit collected, from 3% to 2.5%. The Bank contended that the decision was a cost reduction measure consistent with the policy decision of the Reserve Bank of India. The Bank categorically denied the entitlement of the DDCs to the pay scale of Head Clerk.
8] The Labour Court framed the following issues and recorded its findings:
Issues. Findings. 1) Whether the applicants prove that they are employees Yes.
of the non-applicant under Section 3(13) of the B.I.R. Act, 1946?
2) Whether the applicants prove that all the applicants have No. completed more than 240 days uninterrupted service with non applicant and entitled to permanency?
3) Whether the applicants prove that the non applicant has Yes.
committed illegal change under Section 46 of the B.IR. Act, 1946?
4) Whether applicants are entitled to benefits as claimed? As per final order.
5) If yes, how much amount? Difference
of
commission
only.
6) What order and relief? As per final
order.
9] The Labour Court, on consideration of the evidence
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::
6 wp5615.07+.J.odt
on record held that the DDCs are employees of the Bank within the meaning of section 3(13) of the BIR Act. The Labour Court then held that the reduction of the commission paid to the DDCs from 3% to 2.5% is an illegal change. The Labour Court held that the DDCs are not regular and permanent employees nor is it proved that the nature of work performed is akin to the work performed by regular employees of the Bank. The Labour Court declined to grant the relief of permanency or regularization or parity of wages with the Head Clerk. The Labour Court allowed the application partly by judgment dated 15.12.2005 and restricted the relief to the declaration that the reduction of commission is an illegal change.
10] The judgment of the Labour Court was assailed by both the Bank and the Union. Appeal 1 of 2006 was preferred by the Bank while Appeal 3 of 2006 was preferred by the Union. By common judgment dated 20.10.2007 the Industrial Court dismissed Appeal 1 of 2006 preferred by the Bank and partly allowed Appeal 3 of 2006 preferred by the Union. The operative order of the Industrial Court reads thus:
1) Appeal (BIR) No. 1/2006 filed by the
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::
7 wp5615.07+.J.odt
Respondent-Bank is hereby rejected.
2) Appeal (BIR) No. 3/2006 filed by the
Applicant-Union is hereby partly allowed.
3) The Respondent-Bank is directed to withdraw illegal change made by it and to reimburse the amount of difference of the commission charges to the employees concerned and to treat the employees concerned (DDCs) enlisted in Exh.32 as its employees by paying them salary in the pay-scale of Clerk from the date of filing of Application (BIR) No. 10/2003, i.e. from November 2003 and to absorb them preferentially in the post of Clerk, as per seniority amongst them, upon availability of the posts in terms of order above.
4) One month's time is granted to the respondents for compliance of the order.
5) In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
6) Record and Proceedings be sent back to Labour Court, Wardha.
11] The Industrial Court held that the DDCs have completed uninterrupted services for more than 240 days and are entitled to the relief of regularization. The consideration of the Industrial Court and the reasons recorded for molding the relief reads thus:
16/- In the impugned order, even after considering the evidence on record of uninterrupted services by ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 8 wp5615.07+.J.odt the employees concerned, and when there is no defence or submissions made on behalf of the respondent-Bank that they are not continuously working with it, surprisingly, the learned Labour Court has observed that all the applicants (DDCs) have not completed uninterrupted services for more than 240 days. From the impugned judgment, it is clear that the said observations and findings of the learned Labour Court is without considering the available material on record and without giving any reasoning, in support of such findings. It has observed cryptically that they have not completed 240 days service. This being the position, that much part of the impugned judgment cannot be allowed to sustain any more and has to be set aside. Consequently, the further observations of the learned Labour Court in respect of non-granting of relief of permanency are incorrect. On that incorrect cryptic finding the Labour Court has proceeded further, making base thereof. The learned Labour Court has totally ignored the available material/evidence on record and thereby resulted in miscarriage of justice. So also it seems that the learned Labour Court has merely reproduced the pleadings of the respondent-Bank without giving any finding in respect of powers of the Labour Court under Section 78 of the B.I.R. Act. From the judgment referred to above, it is clear that such relief can be granted in view of the continuous working of the employees concerned, DDCs, from initial appointment, till today. They are not only the employees, but they are also entitled for the relief of regularization of the services. The applicant-Union has thus succeeded in making out case for getting the relief, whereas the respondent-Bank has failed to establish its case for not granting the reliefs, prayed for. The point no.1 is therefore, answered accordingly. Admittedly, no compliance has been made prior to making such change.
17/- In view of the above observations and ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 9 wp5615.07+.J.odt findings, it is to be seen as to what relief will meet the ends of justice. No doubt, the applicant-union has claimed regularization of services from the date of completion of 240 days services by each of the DDCs. As per Exh.32, there are 69 DDCs, so also, their dates of employment and dates of birth have been given, alongwith the educational qualifications. From the record, it is clear that they are doing the clerical and manual work since the date of their initial employment, but at the same time, nothing has been brought on record from the side of the applicant-union that in fact, there is existence of vacancies of these much posts, i.e. 69 posts, with the respondent-Bank. If all of them are granted relief at a time, it will be very difficult and may create further complications. The relief in the manner, asked for by the applicant-union, is also likely to impose great financial burden and likely to affect it seriously. In such circumstances, if the relief of granting wages/pay-scales to the employees concerned that of clerical grade, from the date of filing of the B.I.R. Application No.10/2003 is granted, i.e., from November 2003, then it will serve the ends of justice. It will be just and proper for the respondent/Bank that looking to the availability of the vacancies in the clerical posts, the employees concerned (DDCs) are absorbed as per their seniority, as is clear from Exh.32, preferentially. The respondent/Bank to give priority to these employees as and when there is need of employing clerical grade employee. The respondent/Bank, admittedly, has absorbed about 10 DDCs in regular employment. The respondent/Bank has further failed to prove that why such relief cannot be granted in favour of the employees concerned, in view of the fact that it had earlier regularized about 10 DDCs in employment. Nothing has been clarified on its behalf. The relief granted above will meet the ends of justice. With such observations, following order needs to be passed.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::
10 wp5615.07+.J.odt 12] Writ Petition 5615 of 2007 is preferred by the Bank
and Writ Petition 4872 of 2010 is preferred by the Union, questioning the judgment in appeal. The Union is aggrieved to the extent the relief of regularization and permanency and monetary benefit is denied to the DDCs from the date of completion of 240 days continuous service.
13] I have heard the learned counsel Shri S.D. Thakur for the Union and the learned counsel Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar for the Bank at length. With the able assistance of the learned counsel I have scrutinized the material on record and the reasons recorded by the courts below.
14] Shri S.D. Thakur would submit that the Industrial Court erred in molding the relief and in not granting the relief with effect from the date on which the DDCs completed 240 days of continuous service. Shri S.D. Thakur would heavily rely on the provisions of the model standing orders to buttress the submission that the DDCs are entitled to the relief of regularization from the date of completion of 240 days continuous service. The obligation of the employer to confer permanency on the day the employee ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 11 wp5615.07+.J.odt completes 240 days of continuous service is absolute and admits of no exception, is the submission. Shri S.D. Thakur would further contend that the direction of the Industrial Court that the DDCs be absorbed, preferably, as Clerk, as and when vacancies of Clerks would occur is abdication of jurisdiction. 15] Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, the learned counsel for the Bank would submit that the Union did not have the locus to ventilate the grievance of the DDCs who are commission agents and not the employees of the Bank. The extended submission is that the DDCs are not the members of the Union. Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar assails the order in appeal as a non reasoned order as regards the material aspects having bearing on the controversy. Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar would further submit that the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claim for permanency. The Labour Court justifiable declined to consider the claim of permanency and the Industrial Court in appeal erred in overlooking that the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the issue of permanency. Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar would then submit that in the teeth overwhelming evidence on record the Industrial Court erred in holding that the DDCs ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 12 wp5615.07+.J.odt completed 240 days of continuous service. It is further submitted, that in any view of the matter, the Industrial Court did not appreciate that even if it is assumed, arguendo that the DDC an employee, he is not a regular or permanent employee nor is he entitled to the pay and other emoluments extended to permanent and regular employees, the very nature of work being different and not comparable with the work performed by a Clerk or any other permanent or regular employee. Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar would submit that the reference by the Union to the regularization of 10 commission agents is misleading. The reference is de hors the pleadings. Such a submission is raised during the course of arguments and was rebutted by the Bank by pointing out that there was no regularization as such and the DDCs resigned and participated in the process of selection as fresh candidates and were selected. Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar would submit that the judgment in appeal militates against the enunciation of law in Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 36.
16] It is noticed from the judgment in appeal that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Banks Association v. ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::
13 wp5615.07+.J.odt Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 36 was pressed in service by both the Union and the Bank. It would be apposite to consider the said decision in some detail since the question which fell for consideration was whether the commission agents or Deposit Collectors employed in the Banks specified in the reference were entitled to pay scales, allowances and other service conditions available to regular clerical employees of those Banks.
16.1] The directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal, which were assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court, read thus:
"All those Deposit Collectors and Agents who are below the age of 45 years on 3.10.1980 (the date of the first reference of this industrial dispute) shall be considered for regular absorption for the post of Clerks and cashiers if they are matriculates and above including qualified Graduates and Post Graduates. They may be taken to banks service as regular employees if they pass the qualifying examination conducted by the banks, Those who are absorbed shall be treated on par with regular clerical employees of the Bank. Those who are qualified with 8th Class and below Matriculations shall be considered for absorption as Sub-Staff by conducting qualifications examination.
As regards the Deposit Collectors and Agents who are above 45 years of age on the date 3-10-1980 and also those who are unwilling to be absorbed in Regular Banks service they shall be paid ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 14 wp5615.07+.J.odt the fall back wages of Rs. 750.00 per month linked with minimum deposit of Rs. 7,500,00 per month and they should be paid incentive remuneration at 2 per cent for collection of over and above 7,500.00 per month and they should also pay uniform conveyance of Rs. 50 per month for deposit of less than Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 100.00 per month for deposits of more than Rs. 10,00.00 upto or above Rs. 30,000,00 per month they should be paid Gratuity of 15 days commission for each year of service rendered."
16.2] The High Court set aside the direction to absorb the Deposit Collectors as the regular staff and upheld the other directions of the Tribunal regarding payment of conveyance allowance, gratuity etc. 16.3] The contention before the Apex Court was that the Deposit Collectors could not be treated as workmen since their engagement was purely a matter of contract between the parties. The contention was that the Deposit Collectors did their work without any control or supervision of the Banks and were free to do other work for and on behalf of other employer/s. It was submitted that the Deposit Collectors had no fixed time or period to devote their work as Deposit Collectors or for their attendance in the Bank. It was further emphasized that there was no qualification or age limit for engagement as a Deposit Collectors. ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::
15 wp5615.07+.J.odt 16.4] The Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the findings of the
Tribunal that the Deposit Collectors were workmen within the meaning of section 2(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 16.5] In paragraph 26 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the submission that the Banks have no control over the Deposit Collectors cannot be countenanced. Paragraph 26 reads thus:
26. We also cannot accept the submission that the banks have no control over the Deposit Collectors. Undoubtedly, the Deposit Collectors are free to regulate their own hours of work, but that is because of the nature of the work itself. It would be impossible to fix working hours for such Deposit Collectors because they have to go to various depositors. This would have to be done at the convenience of the depositors and at such times as required by the depositors. If this is so, then no time can be fixed for such work. However, there is control inasmuch as the Deposit Collectors have to bring the collections and deposit the same in the banks by the very next day. They have to then fill in various forms, accounts, registers and pass books. They also have to do such other clerical work as the bank may direct. They are, therefore, accountable to the bank and under the control of the bank."
16.6] Dealing with the direction to absorb the Deposit Collectors as regular workmen the Hon'ble Apex Court articulates thus:
28. Mr. Nageshwar Rao is right in his ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 16 wp5615.07+.J.odt submission that the concession was not binding on his clients. However, what has been conceded has been correctly conceded. No question arose of directing absorption of the Deposit Collectors as regular workmen. No such demand had been made and, therefore, there could have been no such direction. Such direction were beyond the reference. Even otherwise, the question of absorption would be fully covered by an authority of this Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Baby. In this case it has been held that persons who are engaged on the basis of individual contracts to work on commission basis cannot be equated with regular employees doing similar work. It has been held that the mode of selection and qualifications are not comparable with those of the employees, even though the employees may be doing similar works. In the present case, not only are the modes of selection and qualifications not comparable, but even the work is not comparable. The work which the Deposit Collectors do is completely different from the work which the regular employees do. There was thus no question of absorption and there was also no question of the Deposit Collectors being paid the same pay scales, allowances and other service conditions of the regular employees of the banks.
16.7] Thus it can be seen that while the Hon'ble Apex Court notes that no demand of absorption was made, the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that even otherwise there was no question of absorption or the Deposit Collectors being paid the same pay scales, allowances and other service conditions of the regular employees of the Bank. The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the difference between persons who are engaged on the basis of ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 17 wp5615.07+.J.odt individual contracts to work on commission and regular employees doing similar work.
16.8] The Industrial Court clearly erred in brushing aside the reliance of the Bank on the said decision noting only the first part of paragraph of 28 which records that no demand for absorption was made. If paragraph 28, and indeed the decision, is holistically read, the irresistible conclusion is that the judgment in appeal militates against the enunciation of law in Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others. 17] Shri S.D. Thakur made a valiant effort to persuade me to hold that the judgment in Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others is distinguishable. Shri S.D. Thakur would contend that the said decision did not consider the effect and implication of a provision akin to the model standing orders. I am afraid I cannot concur with the said submission. 18] The evidence on record overwhelmingly shows that the mode of selection, the qualification and the nature of work of the DDCs cannot be compared with those of a regular and ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 18 wp5615.07+.J.odt permanent employee. While the courts below have recorded a finding that the DDCs are employees within the meaning of section 3(13) of the B.I.R. Act, in view of the decision in Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others the DDCs are not entitled to be treated at par with regular and permanent employees of the Bank as regards the service conditions.
19] Shri S.D. Thakur invites my attention to Standing Order 4B of the Model Standing Order framed in exercise of power conferred by the Government of Maharashtra by sub-section (5) of section 35 of the B.I.R. Act which reads thus:
4B. Conformation of temporary employees. -- A temporary employee, who has put in 190 days uninterrupted service in aggregate in any undertaking of season nature of 240 days uninterrupted service in the aggregate in any other establishment, during a period of preceding twelve calendar months shall be made permanent in that undertaking by an order in writing signed by the Manager of any person authorised in that behalf by the Manager, irrespective of whether or not his name is on the master roll of the undertaking throughout the period of the said twelve calender months.
Explanation.--For purposes of this clause any period of interrupted service V caused by cessation of work which is not due to any fault of the employee ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 19 wp5615.07+.J.odt concerned shall not be counted for the purpose of computing 190 days or 240 days as the case may be for making a badli or temporary employee permanent.
20] Once it is held that the DDCs cannot be equated with regular and permanent employees in view of the nature of work performed, the qualification and the mode of selection the question of conferring permanency on the basis of applicability of Model Standing Orders 4B does not arise. The applicability of Model Standing Orders 4B to seasonal employees was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. And another v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Employees' Union and another reported in AIR 1994 SC 1046 thus:
9. Coming now to the next contention, viz., that in the appointment letter of the seasonal employees it has been specifically mentioned that their conditions will be governed by the Model Standing Orders and Model Standing Order No. 4-B which is quoted above, requires that the employees who have put in 240 or more days of service should be made permanent, we are of the view that the contention has no substance. It must in the first instance be remembered that the Model Standing Orders do not apply to seasonal employees. Secondly, the seasonal employees in the present case ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 20 wp5615.07+.J.odt are governed by their own service conditions, which as pointed out above, have in material respects no relation to the service conditions of the perennial employees who are governed by the said Model Standing Orders. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that all the Model Standing Orders are applicable to the seasonal employees. By the appointment letter, the Model Standing Orders have only been incorporated in the other service conditions of the seasonal employees only to the extent that the specific service conditions of the seasonal employees are silent on the aspects covered by the Model Standing Orders and which orders would necessarily apply to the seasonal employees. The Model Standing Orders, therefore, are applicable to the seasonal employees mutatis mutandis. The Model Standing Order No. 4-B in particular will be inapplicable to the seasonal employees because of the very nature of their employment and hence it cannot be read into the service conditions of the seasonal employees. Lastly, a reading of the said Model Standing Order No. 4-B would itself make it clear that it is applicable to the perennial employees only. It speaks of temporary workmen in any establishment of a seasonal nature or in other establishment during a period of preceding twelve months. Admittedly, the appellant-Federation's establishment is not of a seasonal nature. It is only some employees employed therein who are seasonal. Secondly, as far as the employees in the other establishments spoken of there, are concerned, they can only be such employees who are employed for perennial work but for some reason or the other are not allowed to complete 240 days in such perennial work. It is, therefore, clear that the said Model Standing Order does not apply to seasonal employees. Hence this contention has also to be rejected.
Model Standing Order 4B mandates that a temporary ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 ::: 21 wp5615.07+.J.odt employee who has put in 240 days uninterrupted service in the aggregate during the period preceding 12 calendar months shall be made permanent. Temporary employee is defined as an employee who has been appointed for a limited period for work which is of an essentially temporary nature or who is employed temporarily as an additional employee in connection with temporary increase in work of a permanent nature and includes an employee who is appointed in a temporary vacancy of a permanent employee or probationer. The underlying logic is that if the work continues for uninterrupted period of 240 days, the work would not be of temporary nature nor would the engagement be necessitated by temporary increase in work of a permanent nature. 21] The judgment in appeal directs the Bank to pay the DDCs salary in the pay scale of Clerk and to absorb them preferentially in the clerical cadre upon availability of the posts. Such a direction is unsustainable, even on the touchstone of Model Standing Orders 4B, even if it is assumed arguendo that the said model standing order has any relevance or applicability.
22] The judgment of the Labour Court, to the extent the
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::
22 wp5615.07+.J.odt
reduction of the commission from 3% to 2.5% is unexceptionable. 23] However, the judgment of the Industrial Court in Appeal 3 of 2006 preferred by the Union is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside.
24] In the result, while Writ Petition 4872 of 2010 preferred by the Union is dismissed, Writ Petition 5615 of 2007 preferred by the Bank is partly allowed. The judgment dated 15.12.2005 rendered by the Labour Court in B.I.R. Case 2 of 2003 is affirmed and the judgment of the Industrial Court in B.I.R. Appeal 2 of 2003 is set aside. These petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:43:30 :::