Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010134012022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4538/2022
MANAGEMENT OF UCO BANK
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE, 10, B.T. M. SARANI (BRABOURNE ROAD),
CALCUTTA, REPRESENTED THROUGH ABANI KUMAR BARUAH, AGM,
ZONAL OFFICE, UCO BANK, GUWAHATI REGION, SILPUKHURI, P.O.
GUWAHATI-781003, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI-
110001.
2:THE CONCILIATION OFFICER
ALC (CENTRAL) GUWAHATI SHRAM SADAN
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007.
3:THE WORKMAN
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE SECRETARY
THROUGH SHRI DEBAKAR BARMAN UCO BANK
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
N.E. STATE COUNCIL
FANCY BAZAR BRANCH AND OTHERS KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI-781003
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mukesh Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
03.08.2022 Heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 (Caveator) and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
2. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed for setting aside and quashing the direction dated 30.05.2022 and 02.06.2022 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, which pertains to implementation of the Award dated 14.06.2000, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 11(C)/99.
3. The brief facts of the case is that in terms of the settlement reached between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 for regularization of Bank employees, a settlement was reached on 19.10.1989. As five Bank employees were not regularized, the said 5 persons filed reference cases, which was disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati vide Award dated 14.06.2000. The reference cases that were disposed of were Reference Case Nos. 2(C)/99, 3(C)/99, 6(C)/99, 9(C)/99 and 11(C)/99. The Award dated 14.06.2000 directed that the names of all the workmen in the five reference cases should be empanelled for regularization by the petitioner and their services should be regularized in future when vacancies arose. It also ordered if any of the workmen in the five reference cases had been disengaged by the Management from their services, after completion of the statutory period of 240 days, they should be reengaged immediately on casual basis and should be empanelled for regularization along with the other workmen and should be regularized in the manner already stated above.
4. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 14.06.2000, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 1010/2001. WP(C) No. 1010/2001 was disposed of by this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2006, by setting aside the Award dated 14.06.2000 in respect of Page No.# 3/5 Reference Case Nos. 2(C)/99, 3(C)/99, 6(C)/99 and 9(C)/99. However, the Award dated 14.06.2000 was upheld in respect of Reference Case No. 11(C)/99. This Court in its Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1010/2001 also held that the ground on which regularization was denied to Md. Ahmed Hussain Laskar [Reference Case No. 11(C)/99] left the Court satisfied that such denial had been made on technical ground and not on account of any substantive non-fulfillment of any of the terms of the settlement dated 12.10.1989. This Court thus directed that if Md. Ahmed Hussain Laskar was otherwise eligible, he should not have been left out of consideration for regularization, merely because he had not applied and as such, a technical lacuna could have been cured by the management at any subsequent point of time.
5. The petitioner's counsel submits that subsequent to the judgment & order dated 24.08.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1010/2001, Md. Ahmed Hussain Laskar has not filed any application for regularization and has not turned up before the management. He submits that unless Md. Ahmed Hussain Larkar submits something to the management, for regularizing his service, the management cannot regularize his service.
6. On a pointed query raised by this Court as to whether the petitioner is still in the service of the Bank and is working with the Bank, the petitioner's counsel submits that Md. Ahmed Hussain Laskar is still in service in the Bank and still working.
7. The petitioner's counsel submits that subsequent to the above events, the respondent No. 3 has approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati on 24.11.2019 for implementation of the Award dated 14.06.2000, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati and accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.01.2022 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati directing them to submit their written comments with regard to the application submitted by the respondent No. 3. He also submits that the petitioner has submitted the written comments on 11.02.2022. However, without considering the petitioner's written reply dated 11.02.2022, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati has issued the impugned orders dated 30.05.2022 and 02.06.2022, directing Page No.# 4/5 them to implement the Award dated 14.06.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati and the judgment & order dated 24.08.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1010/2001.
8. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submits that the writ petition is only meant to delay the implementation of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, relating to Reference Case No. 11(C)/99 and the judgment & order dated 24.08.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1010/2001. He also submits that as per the letter dated 09.08.2016, issued by the Zonal Manager to the Head Office, HRM & Training Department, the workman i.e. Md. Ahmed Hussain Laskar was found fit for regularization and that he was working in the Bank.
9. On considering that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the said employee Md. Ahmed Hussain Laskar is working in UCO Bank and as the judgment & order dated 24.08.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1010/2001, makes it abundantly clear that the said employee has fulfilled all the substantive requirements for regularization, the present writ petition appears to be only a delaying tactic. As such, the present writ petition is dismissed.
10. As the matter is pending before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati and as the petitioner's grievance is only to the effect that they have not been heard, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the next date. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the next date for appearance before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati is on 05.08.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner is informed of the date, so that the petitioner can appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati on the said date, wherein the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the said date itself, unless the next date is not changed in the meantime by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati.
Page No.# 5/5 The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant