Calcutta High Court
Sri Rabi Shankar Das vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 August, 2025
2025:CHC-OS:158
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/567/2024
SRI RABI SHANKAR DAS
-VERSUS-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Sudip Kumar Maiti, Adv.
Ms. Deborsi Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Ankush Majumdar, Adv.
For the Bank : Mr. Shiv Mandal Singh, Adv.
For the Union of India : Mr. Imran Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Amal Kumar Dutta, Adv.
Hearing concluded on : 05.08.2025
Judgment on : 26.08.2025
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :-
1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award dated
December 6, 2023 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial
Tribunal at Kolkata under Reference No.23 of 2018 and published in the
Gazette of India dated February 20, 2024.
2. The petitioner's case is that the Ministry of Labour, Government of India,
in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 10(1)(d) and 10(2A) of the
2
2025:CHC-OS:158
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred a dispute for adjudication before
the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta vide Memo
No.12011/28/92(RB) dated April 27, 1992. The issue referred for
adjudication is as follows:-
"Whether the demand of All Bank Canteen Employees Union
(Calcutta) that canteen staff, employed by the canteen at the
premises of Indian Bank, should be given regular appointment in
the services of the Bank with minimum salary payable to regular
appointment in the Bank, is justified ? If not, to what relief are the
workmen concerned entitled ?"
3. During the pendency of the said reference before the learned Tribunal,
number of correspondences were made between the Bank and the Indian
Bank Employees' Union, which subsequently culminated into a
settlement whereunder the Indian Bank was agreeable to include 91
canteen boys in the panel of temporary sub-staff as one-time
measure as per norms prescribed in Co/Personnel Departments'
Circular No.24/83 dated March 4, 1983 with relaxation in respect of
upper age limit which would be 40 years. The agreement was
submitted before the Learned Tribunal on December 11, 1997 by way of
an application containing the terms of the agreement verified by one Shri
Dhiren Sil, the Assistant General Secretary of All Bank Canteen
Employees' Union. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the said
agreement between the Management and the workmen and had been
pleased to pass an award dated July 13, 1998 upholding such agreement
and observing that the same is legal and fair. Thus, by an award dated
3
2025:CHC-OS:158
July 13, 1998, the Reference dated April 27, 1992 was disposed of
and the said agreement was made a part of the award.
4. The Indian Bank, the respondent no.2 herein, challenged the award
dated July 13, 1998 by way of a writ petition being WP No.2101 of 1999,
which the High Court was pleased to dismiss on February 26, 2002
holding that the award was passed on compromise. It was no more open
to be challenged and/or reopened on any ground raised by the writ
petitioner (Indian Bank) and the questions raised was no more
sustainable.
5. The judgment of the Single Bench was challenged before the Division
Bench wherein the judgment and order of the Single Bench was upheld
on the observation that management missed the bus by not objecting to
such settlement being approved before the learned Tribunal.
6. The Division Bench was pleased to modify the award to the extent that,
since the reference was with regard to 41 canteen boys only and not 91
persons named in the list attached with the award, the award, therefore,
would be applicable to the original 41 persons who were in service at the
time of reference.
7. The Court further directed that "for the other 50 persons the Union would
be entitled to raise similar dispute and such issue can be resolved through
reconciliation on the same terms and conditions so that those 50 persons
could also be brought within the hotchpots of the settlement to avoid
further complication."
2025:CHC-OS:158
8. The Court further directed that the bank is entitled to follow their regular
recruitment rules and procedure while considering the empanelled
candidate for regular appointment meaning thereby all those 41 persons
would be invited for being considered in the post of sub-staff, as and
when vacancy would arise subject to their eligibility with regard to age
and qualification. The Division Bench had been specifically pleased
to hold that 'so long all those 41 persons are not considered and
taken, the bank would not be entitled to go for regular recruitment
process from outsiders as agreed upon by the parties.
9. The bank preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Apex
Court, being SLP (Civil) No.17079 of 2007, assailing the judgment and
order dated March 29, 2007 passed by the Division Bench. It is stated
by the petitioner that during the pendency of such Special Leave Petition,
the General manager and Circle Head of Indian Bank swore and affirmed
an affidavit on May 8, 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby
stating (in paragraph 4) that "this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
dispose of the present Special Leave Petition directing both the parties to
give effect to the award of the Central Government Labour Tribunal as
modified and clarified by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the
impugned judgment."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the SLP on the basis of the
said undertaking
11. It is further submitted by the petitioner that in spite of the
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on May 10, 2010, the
2025:CHC-OS:158
management through Memo No.HRM 189/2009-10, by way of a
notification declared that 184 sub-staffs have been promoted from sub-
staff cadre to clerical cadre on passing requisite examinations, thereby
meaning that 184 vacancies have arisen in the post of sub-staff in
various branches of the Indian Bank. Out of these 184 vacancies, 25
vacancies were in the Kolkata circle. The Bank was not willing to comply
with the directions of the High Court and Supreme Court in spite of the
25 vacancies in the Kolkata Circle.
12. It is submitted that the respondent/Bank authorities issued Memo
No. KCO : CB : CIR:028:2010 dated August 9, 2010 which was regarding
"Empanelment of persons available out of 41 Canteen boys listed in the
award dated 13th July 1998 of Central Government Industrial Tribunal"
as modified and clarified by the order dated March 29, 2007 by this
Hon'ble Court in the panel of temporary sub-staff as per proceedings
dated May 6, 2010 of the Supreme Court.
13. It was stated therein that in compliance to the proceedings of the
Supreme Court dated May 6, 2009, the Bank implements the award
dated July 13, 1998 as modified by this Hon'ble Court by empanelling 37
out of 41 persons listed in the Award in the panel of temporary Sub-Staff
after verification of their credentials to be engaged on temporary basis at
various branches on day to day basis as and when need arises and as
per requirement of the Bank.
14. The Assistant Director, Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Government of India issued a Memo, being No.1-52029/18/2011-IR(Imp-
2025:CHC-OS:158
I) dated August 16, 2011, bearing the finding that the Management of
Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata has not implemented the Award dated
July 13, 1998 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial
Tribunal as modified by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
15. In view of the same, the Chief Labour Commissioner was requested
to issue directions to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Kolkata, to get
the Award implemented or process the case for obtaining sanction for
prosecution against defaulting officials in this regard and also to furnish
an action taken report to the said Ministry at the earliest.
16. On June 23, 2011 through Memo No.HRM:31/2010-11, the
Management by way of a notification declared that 228 Sub-staffs have
been promoted from Sub-Staff cadre to Clerical Cadre on passing
qualifying test. Thereby meaning that there were 228 vacancies in the
post of Sub-staff in various branches of the Indian Bank. Out of these
228 vacancies, 10 vacancies were in the Kolkata Circle.
17. An RTI application was filed by one of the Petitioners on September
16, 2011 wherein he received a reply that there is no vacancy identified
by the bank to fill up in the sub-staff cadre. In reply to the second query
as enumerated herein above it was stated that "From 13.07.1998 to till
date 55 persons have joined various branches as sub-staff in
Bhubaneshwar, Patna and Kolkata Zones (Eastern Cones)."
18. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the settlement entered
into by and between the Management and the canteen workers, the
concerned 91 canteen boys were supposed to be absorbed in "permanent
2025:CHC-OS:158
capacity," as and when vacancy arises and no appointment shall be
made in the category of sub-staff from outside this panel till the panel is
exhausted and the panel shall remain alive till all the persons named in
the list are absorbed against permanent vacancies. It was further
mentioned in the settlement that the named 91 canteen boys shall be
placed in the panel of temporary sub-=staff and shall be absorbed
against permanent vacancies in the same order in which their names
appear in the list annexed hereto.
19. While giving regular appointment in the services of the bank, the
employees should be fixed at the minimum salary to the equal rank of
bank. The aforesaid terms of settlement has been upheld by the learned
Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta as well as the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
20. It is stated that the Management has kept the 41 empanelled
members of the respondents/applicant union as temporary sub-staffs,
but no appointment letters have been issued to any of them. Moreso, the
payment made to the said temporary sub-starffs are not backed by way
of pay slip and are paid on a day to day basis and are only used for leave
vacancies.
21. The actions of the respondent authorities are de hors the terms of
the settlement, wherein it was agreed by the parties to such settlement
that the empanelled persons will be given appointment against vacant
posts as and when the same arise, as permanent sub-staff.
2025:CHC-OS:158
22. Finding no other alternative, on May 30, 2016 the petitioners
raised a dispute before the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) at
Delhi. After conciliation proceedings having failed, the respondent
authorities issued an order dated November 30, 2018 being No.L-
12012/19/2018 (IR)(BII). The Schedule of the reference is as follows:
"Whether, the action of the management of Indian bank in
denying absorption of Rabi Shankar Das and Shri Prasanta
Debnath in service of the Indian Bank legal and/or justified ? If
not, to what reliefs the workmen are entitled ?"
Reference no.23/18 was registered before the learned Central
Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta. The present petitioner
along with one Prasanta Debnath, who subsequently expired, filed a
settlement of claim before the learned Tribunal on January 2, 2019.
23. The Award was passed by the learned Tribunal on December 6,
2023 dismissing their case. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the
present writ application has been preferred.
24. The Tribunal vide award dated 6th December, 2023 held as follows:
"Be that as it may, the concerned workman has failed to prove
that there exists a vacancy in the permanent post of Sub-staff in
Indian Bank and he possesses all the qualification to be
appointed as sub-staff. That apart, he may be a casual employee
of the bank but in order to get a job against the permanent
vacancy he is to fulfill all the criteria and procedure established
for regular recruitment as per recruitment rules applicable.
Therefore, this Tribunal holds that on the basis of an award dated
13-07-1998 passed in Reference Case no.47 of 1992 (Exb. W-1),
2025:CHC-OS:158
Order passed in W.P. No.2101 of 1999 on 26-02-2002 and which
has been modified vide Exb. No.W-4/A in APM No.480 of 2002,
the workman cannot claim that they stand on the same footings
with those 41 Canteen Boys whose services have been
regularized by virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
Calcutta High Court passed in APM No.480 of 2002 and in view of
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being SLP No.17079 of
2007 dated 08-05-2009 (Exb.W/5). Accordingly, the concerned
workmen Sri Rabi Shankar Das and deceased Prasanta Debnath
are not entitled to regularization against a permanent post in the
Indian Bank. Accordingly, Reference Case No.23 of 2018 is
dismissed and award to that effect is passed.
25. One of the findings of the Tribunal being relevant is reproduced
herein :
"The workmen have failed to produce a single piece of
document to prove indeed they were appointed as Canteen
Boys either by the bank directly or through its contractor or
by the Canteen Committee. It is interesting to note that the
workmen have failed to produce the list of the workmen
attached with the order of reference in Reference Case No.47
of 1992 or any order of the Tribunal whereby their names
have been added as parties to the Reference Case no.47 of
1992 and to show that they stand on the same footing with
those 41 workmen whose services have been directed to be
regularized by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Calcutta High
Court in APM No.480 of 2002."
26. Both parties have filed their written notes of argument. The
contention of the petitioner/workman is that the petitioner is one of the
2025:CHC-OS:158
persons empanelled in the list of 91 Canteen Boys (now the remaining
50) as such he is entitled to the same benefits as that of the 41 Canteen
Boys who have been absorbed on the basis of the settlement, which was
accepted in the award passed in respect of a reference relating to the said
41 Canteen Boys, out of the said 91 Canteen Boys.
27. It is the case of the respondent in their written notes that in
compliance of aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, 41 canteen boys
were absorbed by the respondent bank (out of 41 canteen boys, the
actual absorption was only 36 since four canteen boys on serial no. 16,
29, 31 and 41 of the list has been delisted due to irregularities in their
School Leaving Certificate and one canteen boy serial no. 25 (U.S. Roy)
expired and it is their stand since admittedly the petitioners do not fall
within the list of 41 Canteen Boys in terms of the award modified by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and attained its finality before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 17079 of 2007, the petitioners
moved the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata in
Reference No. 23 of 2018 to get the benefit in terms of the said award
dated July 13, 1998 passed by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal at Calcutta in reference No. 47 of 1992.
28. On hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and on perusal
of the materials on record, it appears that in reference case no. 47 of
1992 an award was passed by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, Kolkata wherein the reference was as follows:-
2025:CHC-OS:158
"Whether the demand of All Bank Canteen Employees Union
(Calcutta) that canteen staff, employed by the canteen at the
premises of Indian Bank, should be given regular appointment in
the services of the Bank with minimum salary payable to regular
employees of the Bank, is justified? If not, to what relief are the
workmen concerned entitled?"
29. A settlement was entered into and an award was passed accepting
the said Terms of Settlement laid down in the settlement out of which
two are as follows:-
a) Canteen Boys as per list annexed hereto will be included in the
panel of temporary sub-staff as one time measure as per norms
prescribed in Co-Personal Department's Circular No. 24/33
dated 04.03.83 with relation in respect of appear are limit
which will be 40 years. They will be absorbed in permanent
capacity as all when Tenancy Sri and no appointment until be
in the category of sub-staff from outside this penal till the penal
is exhausted and the penal shall remain alive that all the
persons noted in the list are absorbed against permanent
vacancies. The above 91 Canteen boys shall be placed in the
panel of temporary sub-staffs and shall be absorbed against
permanent vacancies in the same order in which their comes
appear in the list annexed hereto giving regular appointment in
the services of the Bank, the employee would be fixed at the
minimum salary to the equal rank in bank. On such inclusion in
the panel of temporary sub-staff on Canteen Boys will not have
any claim on the Bank pertaining to absorption outside the
terms therein contained.
b) Indian Bank Employees' Union (W.B.) and all Bank Canteen
Employees' Union agreed for secure of the Canteen moreover
functioning all over the Calcutta zone."
2025:CHC-OS:158
30. The said agreement/settlement is not disputed. The said award
was passed on July 13, 1998 on the basis of the said agreement between
the parties in accordance with the terms thereof. The award was
subsequently challenged before the High Court. The award challenged
was passed with no objection from the bank and the terms of settlement
were accepted being held to be legal and fair. Admittedly, the writ
application was dismissed on the ground that the award passed was
on compromise and was not open to be challenged or reopened as
the High Court sits in supervisory jurisdiction and not in appeal. In
appeal by the bank, the Division Bench clarified the award under
challenge as follows:
"With regard to 91 canteen boys, we are of the view that the
Tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction to consider all those 91
persons since the reference was related to 41 persons only and
not 91 persons named in the list attached to the award. The
award, therefore, would be applicable in case of original 41
persons whose names are appearing in the order of reference.
For the other 50 persons the Union would be entitled to
raise similar dispute and such issue can be resolved
through reconciliation on the same terms and conditions so
that those 50 persons could also be brought within the
hotchpot of this settlement to avoid further complication."
31. In the award under challenge, the Presiding Officer observed that
the petitioner joined the bank as a canteen boy on 18 June, 1994 and
deceased workman Prasanta Debnath joined on 13 th April, 1993. Both
2025:CHC-OS:158
claimed they were among the 91 canteen boys and also were parties to
the reference which culminated in an award of compromise dated 13 th
July, 1998, wherein the Tribunal had directed the bank to absorb all 91
canteen boys including the present workman. The Court disagreed with
the case made out by the petitioner therein and observed as follows:
"However, the concerned workman in para - 5, 6 and 7 of his
evidence-in-chief on affidavit has stated that compromise award
dated 13.7.1998 was passed in connection of Reference Case
no.47 of 1992. So, a question arises in the mind of this Tribunal,
how the present workman including the deceased could be parties
to the Reference Case no.47 of 1992 when W.W. No.1, one of the
workmen in paragraph 3 of this evidence in chief on affidavit
admitted that he joined as Canteen Boys in the bank on
18.06.1994 and deceased workman on 13.4.1993 i.e. much after
the initiation of the reference case. So, prima facie, it is seen
that they joined as Canteen Boys as alleged after the
reference of the dispute in respect of 41 Canteen Boys in
the year 1992. So, it is not known how the present
workmen could claim that they were parties to the
Reference Case no.47 of 1992 when they were not even in
the service of the bank in whatever capacity as a
temporary or casual.
32. The tribunal found that no list of 91 canteen boys had been
attached to the documents in Reference Case no.47 of 1992. The
Tribunal then, on the finding that the petitioners were not part of the list
of 91 canteen boys, proceeded to dispose of the reference on merit
regarding the regularization of the petitioners and held that the
2025:CHC-OS:158
concerned workmen could not prove that there exist a vacancy in the
permanent post of sub-staff in the Indian Bank or that they had the
qualification to be appointed as sub-staff and held that the petitioners
were not entitled to the benefit which the 41 canteen boys had got as
they were not on the same footing and dismissed the reference.
33. Considering the claim and from the materials on record it
appears that:-
i) The issue in reference of 1992 was as follows:
"Whether the demand of All Bank Canteen Employees Union
(Calcutta) that canteen staff, employed by the canteen at the
premises of Indian Bank, should be given regular appointment
in the services of the Bank with minimum salary payable to
regular appointment in the Bank, is justified ? If not, to what
relief are the workmen concerned entitled."
ii) The reference did not mention the number Canteen Staff
(workmen) but at the time of reference, only 41 canteen boys
were employed at the premises of Indian bank through the
State (West Bengal) and the demand was made by the All
Bank Canteen Employees' Union (Calcutta). The number
"91 Canteen Boys" is part of the settlement terms and the
award. (The strength having increased).
iii) It was during pendency of the reference that a settlement
was entered into between the Bank and the Union in respect
2025:CHC-OS:158
of 91 Canteen Boys which included the earlier 41, which was
submitted before the Tribunal on 11th December, 1997.
iv) An award dated 13th July, 1998 was passed on the basis of
the said settlement, on the petition of the union dated 30 th
June, 1998.
v) The Division Bench of this Court in appeal (APO No.480 of
2002) on 29th March, 2007 modified the award and made the
award applicable in respect of 41 Canteen Boys (who were in
service when the reference was made) out of the 91 Canteen
Boys named in the list attached granting liberty to the
remaining 50 boys to raise a dispute for claiming the benefit.
vi) It appears from the list of 91 Canteen Boys at page 47 of
the writ application that the petitioner herein is named
at number 51 as Rabi Das and the deceased workman
Prasanta Debnath is at number 42.
vii) The tribunal has clearly overlooked the said fact.
viii) The tribunal also erroneously held that, as the petitioner was
not in service in the year 1992, when the reference was
made, their claim is not tenable.
ix) The petitioner joined his service on 18th June, 1994 and
the deceased workman, Prasanta Debnath, on 13 th April,
1993, and as such both were in service on the date of
submitting the settlement on 11th December, 1997 and
thus also on the date of award on 13 th July, 1998.
2025:CHC-OS:158
x) As such the findings in the award of the tribunal under
challenge being not in accordance with law, the award
dated 6th December, 2023 passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata along with the
Gazette notification dated 20th February, 2024 are set aside.
34. The action of the management of Indian Bank in denying
absorption of Shri Rabi Shankar Das and Shri Prasanta Debnath in the
service of the Bank, is neither legal nor justified.
35. The petitioner herein (at no.51) and the deceased workman
Prasanta Debnath (at no.42), are also entitled to the benefit as per the
terms and conditions in the award on settlement dated 13 th July, 1988,
being empanelled in the list of 91 Canteen Boys, annexed to the
settlement/compromise petition and the same be provided by the Indian
Bank as per the said terms and condition in the petition of compromise
at the earliest.
36. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
37. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
38. Connected applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
39. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.)
A.Sadhukhan
