[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
United Commercial Bank vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 5343 of 2006
United Commercial Bank, through Kanhaiya Singh, son of Late
Damodar Singh, posted as Chief Officer, United Commercial Bank,
Regional Office, Rajendra Jawan Bhawan-cum- Sainik Bazar, P.S.
Ranchi, District- Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Labour, Sharam
Mantralaya, New Delhi.
2. Jiadev Laha, Son of Late Rakho Laha, resident of Sonari, P.S.
Sonari (Jamshedpur) East Singhbhum.
3. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Sharam Bhawan,
Murlinagar, Dhanbad.
4. The Assistant General Secretary, UCO Bank Employees
Association, having its registered office at Narverma Chamber,
P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
: Mr. Sushawan Bhowmik, Advocate
: Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 2 & 4 : Mr. S. K. Laik, Advocate
---
31/26.03.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs in the nature of
certiorari to quash the Award dated 24-3-2006 (Annexure-4)
delivered in Ref. Case No. 125 of 1994 by the Court below by
which the court below has directed the petitioner to
regularize the service of the respondent no.-2 on permanent
basis as and when there is permanent vacancy in the
petitioner's Bank by holding him as a casual worker, the
court below also further pleased to direct the petitioner to
pay the wages as prescribed for casual worker for the Bank,
though in fact there is no relationship between the petitioner
and respondent no-2 as employer and employee not only that
the respondent no-2 has never been appointed by the
petitioner even as a casual worker, the further pleased to
quash the order dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure-5) issued by Sri
Ganga Dharan, under secretary-IR(B-II) by which the said
award has been published for its implementation.
AND/OR
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
During the pendency of writ application the implementation
of award dated 24.3.2006 (Annexure-4) may be stayed.
AND/OR
For issuance of any other writ/(s), order/(s), direction/(s) as
your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
3. The reference made to the learned Industrial Tribunal in terms
of section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act of 1947) is as under:
"Whether the demand of UCO Bank Employees' Association,
Jamshedpur on the management of UCO Bank, Jamshedpur for
regularisation of the services of Shri Jaidev Laha, Casual
Workman is justified? If so, what relief is the said workman
entitled to?"
Arguments of the petitioner (management)
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
learned Industrial Tribunal has gone beyond the terms of reference
and there is a direction to regularize the workman as casual worker
and it has been directed that he would be entitled for regularization on
permanent basis as and when there is permanent vacancy in the bank.
Further, the management has been directed to pay wages to the
workman as prescribed for casual workmen.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
law is well-settled that the Industrial Tribunal has to answer the
reference. He further submits that merely because there is completion
of 240 days of work, there is no concept of automatic regularization.
As per the impugned award itself, there was no vacancy and there is a
direction to regularize the workman in future. The learned counsel
submits that the award is perverse and calls for interference.
6. Not only the award is beyond the terms of reference, but as per
the written statement filed by the management, it was a case of
backdoor entry and merely because the workman had completed 240
days of work, the same does not entitle him for regularization and
admittedly, there was no vacancy even till the date of passing of the
award. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following judgements:-
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
I. The judgment passed in the case of "M.P. State Agro Industries
Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. S.C. Pandey" reported in (2006) 2 SCC
716, (Paragraphs 22 and 23):
22. Such appointments, in our opinion, having regard to the
decisions in Mahendra L. Jain [(2005) 1 SCC 639 : 2005 SCC
(L&S) 154] and Manoj Shrivastava [(2006) 2 SCC 702] must be
made in accordance with extant rules and regulations. It is also
a well-settled legal position that only because a temporary
employee has completed 240 days of work, he would not be
entitled to be regularised in service. Otherwise also the legal
position in this behalf is clear as would appear from the
decision of this Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bhola
Singh [(2005) 2 SCC 470 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 292] apart
from Mahendra L. Jain [(2005) 1 SCC 639 : 2005 SCC (L&S)
154] .
23. The Industrial Court as also the High Court applied the
principles of estoppel on the finding that the respondent was
transferred from Morena to Gwalior. If his appointment was
void, being contrary to the Regulations, in our opinion, the
procedural provisions like estoppel or waiver are not
applicable. If an appointment made by the Branch Manager was
wholly without jurisdiction, the order of appointment itself was
void. Furthermore, the contention of the appellant had been that
in terms of Regulation 16 of the 1976 Regulations, only the
Managing Director of the Corporation could issue an offer of
appointment. It has not been found by the Industrial Court or
the High Court that the Branch Manager and the Regional
Manager were authorised to make such appointments. The
appointment of the respondent, thus, must be held to have been
made only to meet the exigencies of services and not in terms of
the service regulations. The appointment of the respondent,
thus, could not have been made for filling up a regular vacancy
for the purpose of invoking Rule 2 of the Standing Orders."
II.The judgment passed in the case of "Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd."
reported in (2007) 1 SCC 533 (paragraph 28):
28. It is not the law that on completion of 240 days of
continuous service in a year, the employee concerned becomes
entitled to for regularisation of his services and/or permanent
status. The concept of 240 days in a year was introduced in the
industrial law for a definite purpose. Under the Industrial
Disputes Act, the concept of 240 days was introduced so as to
fasten statutory liabilities upon the employer to pay
compensation to be computed in the manner specified in Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before he is
retrenched from services and not for any other purpose. In the
event a violation of the said provision takes place, termination
of services of the employee may be found to be illegal, but only
on that account, his services cannot be directed to be
regularised. Direction to reinstate the workman would mean
that he gets back the same status."
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
Arguments of the respondent (workman and the Employees
Association )
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has opposed the
prayer and has submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal has
rightly drawn adverse inference on account of non-production of
documents and has rightly come to the finding that the workman had
worked for more than 240 days. He has also submitted that there is
clearly employer-employee relationship as the workman was being
paid throughout.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman has then
referred to judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
2008 AIR SCW 3996 (G.M. O.N.G.C., Shilchar Vs. O.N.G.C.
Contractual Workers Union) (paragraphs 16, 17 and 18) to submit
that the terms of reference has to be seen in the light of the core issue
in the case. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
in the said case that the concerned Division Bench of the High Court
had righty observed that it was open to the Industrial Tribunal to have
lifted the veil so as to determine the nature of the employment and the
dispute between the parties and for that purpose to look into the
pleadings and evidence produced before it. The paragraphs 16, 17 and
18 of the said judgment are as under:
"16. It is true that the underlined portion of the reference prima
facie does give the impression that it presupposes that the
workmen were contractual employees and the only dispute was
with regard to the regularisation of their services. It is equally
true that the reference appears to have been rather loosely
worded but as observed by the Industrial Tribunal and the
Division Bench, both parties were aware of the real issues
involved in the light of the protracted litigation and the efforts
made during conciliation proceedings. The Division Bench has,
thus, rightly observed that it was open to the Industrial Tribunal
to have lifted the veil so as to determine the nature of the
employment and the dispute between the parties and for that
purpose to look into the pleadings and evidence produced before
it.
17. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR
1967 SC 469] this is what the Court had to say:
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
"18. ... In our opinion, the Tribunal must, in any event,
look to the pleadings of the parties to find out the exact
nature of the dispute, because in most cases the order of
reference is so cryptic that it is impossible to cull out
therefrom the various points about which the parties were
at variance leading to the trouble. In this case, the order
of reference was based on the report of the Conciliation
Officer and it was certainly open to the management to
show that the dispute which had been referred was not an
industrial dispute at all so as to attract jurisdiction under
the Industrial Disputes Act. But the parties cannot be
allowed to go a stage further and contend that the
foundation of the dispute mentioned in the order of
reference was non-existent and that the true dispute was
something else."
18. The pleadings in the present matter would show that the core
issue before the Tribunal was with regard to the status of the
employees as employees of ONGC or of the contractor and that it
was this issue simpliciter on which the parties went to trial. Mr
Dave's argument with regard to the decision of the Tribunal
being beyond the reference, is to our mind, and in the
circumstances, hyper technical. In this background, we feel that
the judgments cited by Mr Dave pertaining to regularisation of
contract labour are not applicable to the facts of the case."
9. Learned counsel for the respondent -workman has thereafter
referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 (Dharam Singh and others
Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and has referred to paragraph 19 of the
said judgment to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
dealing with a case of regularization, has also directed for creation of
supernumerary posts and appropriate directions were issued.
10. He submits that in view of the aforesaid two judgments, the
impugned award does not call for any interference.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent- workman has also
submitted that it is unfair labour practice within the meaning of
section 2(ra) read with item 10 of schedule-V of the Act of 1947 on
the part of the petitioner bank while allowing a person to work for
years together by paying less wages without regularizing the
workman. This amounts to exploitation of workman. Section 2(ra) and
item 10 of schedule-V of the Act of 1947 are quoted as under:
"Section 2(ra)
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
"unfair labour practice" means any of the practices specified
in the Fifth Schedule"
Item 10 of schedule-V
"To employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and
to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving
them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen."
Findings of this Court.
12. The finding of the learned Industrial Tribunal reveals that the
petitioner did not produce the necessary documents as called upon and
the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the respondent-
workman had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year and
the workman was being paid Rs. 18 per day by voucher at the relevant
point of time way back in the year 1988 as the workman claimed to
have been employed since the year, 1988. The reference was made in
the year 1994.
13. With the aforesaid background, the learned Industrial Tribunal
has recorded a finding as follows:
"4... Thus, it is clear that the concerned workman is working in
the Bank as supplier of the water and also as the peon in the
Bank yet he is not getting proper remuneration. He is in the
service of the Bank for last 18 years. He is rendering service for
the benefit of the Bank for a such long time, therefore, in my
opinion the demand of the concerned workman to regularise him
as casual worker is justified."
14. The learned Industrial Tribunal passed the following directions:
"5. In the result, I render following award-
The demand of the sponsoring union to regularize the concerned
workman, Jaidev Laha, as casual workman of the Bank is fully
justified and he is entitled for regularisation on permanent basis
as and when there is permanent vacancy in the said Bank. He is
also entitled for payment of wages as prescribed for casual
workmen of the Bank. The management is directed to implement
the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the
award, failing which the concerned workman shall be entitled for
wages as prescribed for casual workmen in the category as
prescribed for the time being."
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
15. The terms of reference reveal that the workman through the
Association was seeking regularization of services and as per the
terms of reference itself, the workman was working as casual worker.
The specific case of the workman was that he was serving tea, water
and was also dealing with peon book since 1988 and was being paid
wages at very low rate. It was his case that the work was of a
permanent nature, but he was not yet regularized as permanent
workman and therefore, the dispute was raised seeking regularization
of service of the workman. The written statement filed by the
Association reveals that the workman was being paid wages @ Rs.
18/- per day.
16. On the other hand, the case of the management was that there
was no employer-employee relationship and a space was provided in
the premises to the concerned workman who used to supply tea to the
employees and the customers of the bank.
17. However, as is apparent from the impugned award, numerous
directions were passed to the management to produce the records, but
the management did not produce the records and from the evidence of
the management itself, it revealed that the concerned workman was
being paid Rs. 18 per day only through voucher. On account of non-
production of documents, the learned Industrial Tribunal has drawn an
adverse inference against the management and held that the concerned
workman had completed 240 days of work in one calendar year.
18. This Court is of the view that the finding of the learned
Industrial Tribunal that the concerned workman had completed more
than 240 days of work in one Calander year and adverse inference
drawn by the learned Industrial Tribunal against the management on
account of non-production of records/documents, are in accordance
with law and there is no perversity in such findings.
19. The learned Industrial Tribunal also came to a conclusion that
the concerned workman used to supply water and used to work as
peon in the bank, but he was not getting proper remuneration. The
learned Industrial Tribunal further noted that the concerned workman
was in service for the last 18 years and therefore, his demand to
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
regularize him as 'casual worker' was justified. Further, while issuing
directions, the Industrial Tribunal recorded that the workman would
be entitled for regularization on 'permanent basis', as and when there
is 'permanent vacancy' in the bank.
20. The direction so passed goes to show that there was no vacancy
in the bank and accordingly the direction was passed with respect to
regularization of the concerned workman against future vacancy.
21. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the
workman has completed 240 days of work in a calendar year, the same
will not automatically entitle him for regularization on permanent
basis in absence of any available vacancy to which he could be
regularized. It was not the case of the workman in the written
statement also that he was working as casual worker against any
vacancy or any permanent vacancy was available for his
regularization.
22. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied
upon by the learned counsel for the respondent -workman reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 (Supra) whereby there is a direction to
create supernumerary posts is concerned, this Court is of the view that
while scrutinizing the award under Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, there is no scope to give any direction to create
any post. Further, such a direction to create supernumerary posts
would itself be beyond the terms of reference and no such direction
has been issued by the learned tribunal also.
23. This court is of the considered view that the learned Industrial
Tribunal could not have granted the relief of regularization of the
workman against future permanent vacancy. The learned Industrial
Tribunal has gone beyond the terms of reference while passing such
an award. The direction of the learned Industrial Tribunal holding
that the workman would be entitled for regularization on permanent
basis as and when there is permanent vacancy is beyond the terms of
reference and accordingly, the same is perverse and cannot be
sustained which is hereby set-aside.
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
24. However, at the same time, this Court finds that the parties had
also joined issue on the point that the workman was not getting proper
remuneration. This Court is of the considered view that the learned
Industrial Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the workman was
not being granted proper wages prescribed for 'casual workmen' and
was getting a meagre amount of Rs. 18 per day and accordingly, a
direction was issued to pay wages as prescribed for 'casual workmen'.
25. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondent- workman reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3996 (Supra) is
concerned, there can be no dispute that real dispute between the
parties is required to be considered by the court even when the terms
of reference are not worded properly. In the present case, this Court
finds that although there was a specific reference regarding
regularization of the workman and there was no reference regarding
quantum of wages, but the impugned award itself reveals that the
parties had also joined issue on point of wages as it was the specific
case of the workman that he was being paid a meagre amount of Rs.
18/- per day.
26. So far as argument on behalf of the respondent-workman with
regard to unfair labour practice is concerned, this Court is of the view
that there is no finding as such recorded by the learned court regarding
unfair labour practice and the payment of wages which would be
applicable for 'casual worker' has already been taken care of by the
learned Industrial Tribunal and such finding/direction in the impugned
award is not being interfered by this Court.
27. Consequently, so far as the direction to give wages to the
concerned workman as prescribed for 'casual workmen' in the
category as prescribed, the said direction does not call for any
interference.
28. It is sufficient to observe that in case there is no such
prescribed norms in the bank for payment to casual workman, there
can be no doubt that the workman would at least be entitled to
minimum wages as prescribed under law.
2026:JHHC:8682
2019:JHHC:40026
29. Thus, the impugned award is set-aside only to the extent it
directs regularization of the concerned workman against future
permanent vacancy being perverse and beyond the terms of reference.
The other directions to treat the workman as 'casual workman' and to
give wages as prescribed for 'casual workmen' do not call for any
interference.
30. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
31. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of order: 26.03.2026
Pankaj
Date of uploading:02.04.2026
