Karnataka High Court
The General Secretary vs General Manager on 22 February, 2024
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
W.P. No.9853/2020
C/W W.P. No.13200/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.9853 OF 2020
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.13200 OF 2020 (L-RES)
IN W.P. No.9853 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER
CORPORATION BANK
(NOW KNOWN AS UNION BANK OF INDIA)
CENTRAL OFFICE - MANGALORE ANNEX
MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD
MANGALORE-575 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY
SENIOR MANAGER (PER)
REGIONAL OFFICE
BENGALURU NORTH
MS. KAKUMANU NIRMALA ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL SECRETARY
CORPORATION BANK EMPLOYEES UNION
CBEU, GOLDEN JUBLEE HALL
OPP. SHARDA VIDYALAYA
PVS KALA KUNJ ROAD
W.P. No.9853/2020
C/W W.P. No.13200/2020
2
KODIALBALI
MANGALORE-575 003 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. S.P. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. N.P. AMRUTHESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD
DTD.6.3.2020 PASSED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN C.R.NO.12/2019
(ANNEXURE-K) AND REJECT THE REFERENCE.
IN W.P. No.13200 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL SECRETARY
CORPORATION BANK EMPLOYEES' UNION
CBEU GOLDEN JUBILEE HALL
OPP. SHARADA VIDYALAYA
PVS KALA KUNJ ROAD
KODIALBAIL
MANGALURU-575 003 ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. S.P. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. N.P. AMRUTHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GENERAL MANAGER
CORPORATION BANK
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
DIVISION HEAD OFFICE
MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, 1
MANGALURU-575 001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
OBSERVATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU PASSED IN ITS AWARD DT 6.3.2020
VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE
W.P. No.9853/2020
C/W W.P. No.13200/2020
3
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE MEMBERS OF THE EMPANELMENT WHO
HAVE WORKED AGAINST A PERMANENT VACANCY / SANCTIONED POST
FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS, IF THEY ARE NOT OTHERWISE
DISQUALIFIED TO THE ABOVE POST ONLY AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.01.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Writ petition No. 9853 of 2020 is presented with the
following prayers:
"WHEREFORE it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to set aside the Award dated 06.03.2020 passed by
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bangalore in C.R.No.12/2019 (Annexure-K) and reject the
Reference in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard Shri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned Advocate
for the petitioner, Shri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate
for respondent No.1.
3. Writ petition No. 13200 of 2020 is presented with
the following prayers:
(i) issue any writ, order or direction, to set aside the
observation of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bengaluru passed in its award bearing
No.CR.12/2019 dt:6.3.2020 vide Annexure-C, in so far issuing
direction to the respondent to consider the members of the
empanelment who have worked against a permanent
vacancy/sanctioned post for more than 10 years, if they are not
otherwise disqualified to the above post, only;
(ii) alternatively, to read down the observation of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bengaluru passed in its award bearing No.CR.12/2019
dt:6.3.2020 vide Annexure-C, in so far issuing direction to the
respondent to consider the members of the empanelment who
have worked against a permanent vacancy/sanctioned post for
more than 10 years, if they are not otherwise disqualified to the
above post, by holding it as improper and illegal;
(iii) issues a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent to consider the claims of all the temporary sub-staff
and part time sweepers for conferring status as permanent staff
in the respondent and its branches;
(iv) issue such other writ, order or directions as deems fit in
the circumstances of the case and allow the above writ petition
with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Both the writ petitions are based on same facts
and question of law. Hence, they are heard simultaneously
and disposed of by this common judgment.
5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, the
petitioner-Corporation Bank1 was engaging temporary peons
and part time sweepers in leave vacancies. As and when
permanent vacancy arose, the empanelled temporary
sub-staff were considered for appointment subject to
eligibility. The Bank received a communication dated
22.12.2015 from the Union Government directing it to
discontinue the present system of recruitment and evolve a
policy for recruitment through open notification.
Subsequently, the Bank discontinued absorption of temporary
staff into permanent staff. Aggrieved, the respondent-
Corporation Bank Employees Union raised an industrial
dispute. The CGIT2 passed an award directing the Bank to
consider empanelled members for absorption if they had
completed 10 years in the panel. Aggrieved, the Bank has
presented writ petition No. 9853 of 2020. Aggrieved by the
direction of the Tribunal that consideration be only for those
Hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
who have completed '10 years' in the panel, the Employees
Union has preferred writ petition No. 13200 of 2020
6. Shri. Sawkar, for the Bank mainly submitted that:
the Tribunal erred in directing the Bank to
consider persons who are empanelled for
absorption as there is no such directions given in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and
Others Vs. Umadevi and Others3;
the petitioner Bank merged with the Union Bank
of India in 2020 and there is no such policy of
empanelment in the Union Bank of India.
7. Shri. Shankar, for the respondents, argued that the
award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the law
except for the direction that only the candidates who have
completed 10 years must be considered as it is contrary to
the law and also that no such limit is prescribed in
Umadevi's judgment.
(2006) 4 SCC 1
8. We have carefully considered rival contentions and
perused the records.
9. The Tribunal's award is mainly on the basis of the
judgment in Umadevi's case. The relevant para of the
judgment reads thus:
"The concept of 'equal pay for equal work' is different
from the concept of conferring permanency on those who have
been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on
no process of selection as envisaged by the rules. This Court
has in various decisions applied the principle of equal pay for
equal work and has laid down the parameters for the
application of that principle. The decisions are rested on the
concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in the light of
the directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of
that principle cannot lead to a position where the court could
direct that appointments made without following the due
procedure established by law, be deemed permanent or issue
directions to treat them as permanent. Doing so, would be
negation of the principle of equality of opportunity. The power
to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in
any cause or matter pending before this Court, would not
normally be used for giving the go-by to the procedure
established by law in the matter of public employment. Take
the situation arising in the cases before us from the State of
Karnataka. Therein, after the Dharwad decision, the
Government had issued repeated directions and mandatory
orders that no temporary or ad hoc employment or
engagement be given. Some of the authorities and
departments had ignored those directions or defied those
directions and had continued to give employment, specifically
interdicted by the orders issued by the executive. Some of the
appointing officers have even been punished for their defiance.
It would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in
exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution
permitting those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be
made permanent, based on their appointments or
engagements. Complete justice would be justice according to
law and though it would be open to this Court to mould the
relief, this Court would not grant a relief which would amount
to perpetuating an illegality."
10. Thus, it is clear that the process of
regularisation of empanelled temporary staff is not a
continuous process but shall be undertaken as a onetime
exercise within six months.
11. It is not in dispute that the Bank was
considering empanelled candidates for recruitment until
22.12.2015. Therefore, the Bank has already complied the
directions issued by the Apex Court. The Bank has stopped
this method of recruitment pursuant to the Central
Government's direction to discontinue the existing system
of recruitment and to make recruitment by open
notification.
12. Once, the Bank has already complied with the
direction issued in Umadevi, it is not lawful to direct the
Bank to consider the empanelled candidates again. We are
of the considered view that the Tribunal has misconstrued
the judgment of the Apex Court while passing the award
and it requires interference.
13. Some of the members of the Union have
impleading application to be impleaded as respondents.
Since the Union is already a party, the impleading
application does not require consideration and disposed of.
14. In the light of the above discussion, the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.9853 of 2020 is allowed.
(ii) Writ Petition No.13200 of 2020 is dismissed.
(iii) Order dated March 6th 2020 passed by the
CGIT is set aside.
(iv) The Reference is rejected.
No Costs
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
