BANK OF INDIA AND ANR . v. TARUN KR. BISWAN AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 625

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

BANK OF INDIA AND ANR . v. TARUN KR. BISWAN AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

J BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. .. r v. TARUN KR. BISWAN AND ORS. JULY 3C, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] Labour laws: Regularisation-Claim of, by Bud/ee workers engaged ~ on temporary basis-Scheme for their absorption against permanent vacancies subject to completion of240 Bud/ee working days ofservice in a block year of 12 months-Single Judge ofHigh Court relaxing the norm of240 days if shortfall marginal-Division Bench holding that employer to proceed on the basis that each ofthe worker completed 240 days-On appeal, held: Employee is to establish that he had workedfor more than 240 days-High Court erred in holding that each of them had worked for more than 240 days without factual aspect having been established by workers-Also employees accepted that they did not complete 240 days of work-Entitlement being under the ~~ Scheme, order of High Court is unsustainable and thus, set aside.

Appellant-bank prepared a panel for appointment of Budlee Sepoys on • temporary basis against leave vacancies and absorb them when regular vacancies arose. The scheme for absorption was formulated which was subject to completion of 240 Budlee working days of service in a block year of 12 months or a calendar year. On absorption the Budlee Sepoys would continue on approved panels and would be deployed on leave vacancy on need basis and would be absorbed in permanent vacanci~ arising in future. > Respondents-Budlee workers were engaged on temporary basis as "'"" subordinate staff. They were asked by the Bank to exercise their option for the engagement in non-CCA in West Bengal but were not given employment. Thereafter, respondents filed writ petition seeking regularization of service as subordinate staffin the Bank on the ground that they had served for more than 240 days in a block of 12 months. Appellant submitted that the writ .

'• petitioners were being used as Budlee workers and could not be absorbed having not completed 240 days in a block year. Single Judge of High Court held that. the majority of the writ petitioners 'Worked for more than 240 days --- ~-in th~ y~~r nr a b\nck nf 12 calendar months and directed that the norm of ~ ----- '). 240 days be relaxed if the shortfall was marginal. Appellant-Bank challenged the order on the ground that the Single Judge could not have directed absorption of budlee worker who had not completed 240 days in a particular year. It contended that for purpose ofcalculating 240 days, Sunday and public holidays were excluded.

Division Bench of High Court though observed that the Single Judge was not justified in directing that those who had worked for 210 days could be considered for absorption, but held that the appellants ought to proceed on the basis that each of the writ petitioners had completed 240 days in the block of 12 calendar months, and that there was no logic in ~ excluding the Sundays and public holidays while making the calculations. Hence the present appeals.

Appellant-Bank contended that the letter ofengagement stipulated that -: the employment was only for a specific period of time and on its expiry their services would be teiminated; that the respondents in the representation before Assistant Labour Commissioner accepted that the appellant did not allow them to work for 240 days in a block of12 calendar months; that in the writ petition also respondents clearly admitted that they did not complete the required 240 days of service in a calendar year under the scheme for their deployment/ absorption against permanent vacancies; that the Bank had asked the writ petitioners to exercise their option for engaging in non-CCA areas in West Bengal but the respondents failed to exercise their option and never expressed their willingness for the same; that the said exercise of option did not mean any commitment or assurance for appointment by the Bank; that the Bank had surplus staff even after implementation ofVoluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000; that there was no permanent vacancy ofsub-staff in the Bank; and that no weekly off was given to Budlee worker if he worked only for 6 days, it was only when the engagement of budlee Sepoy was more than 6 days at a stretch ··~ ?

- .. then weekly off was given after 6 days of work. Respondents~employee contended that the High Court had given finding of fact that the writ petitioners had completed 240 days of work; and that in view ofAmerican Express's case that Sundays and public holidays are also to be reckoned, each of the writ petitioners had completed 240 days. .. , Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. 1. The onus is on the employee to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days. The High Court was not right in holding without factual aspect having been established by the respondents that each ofthem -+ BANK OF INDIA v. TARUN KR. BISWAN [PASAYAT, J. ] 627 J' had worked for more than 240 days. The effect of the decision not to fill up the vacancy was also not considered. The writ petitioners accepted that they did not completed 240 days ofworK. Their stand was that the management did not permit them to do so. The Scheme speaks for 240 days of work in Budlee Service.

The scheme of budlee days denotes actual working days. ! Para 111 1632-F, G; 633-A] B. Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. '. Management ofAmerican Express Internationa Banking Corporation AIR t (1986) SC 458, distinguished. Ram Prakash Makkar v. State ofHaryana and Ors. , 11992) 4 SCC 727, referred to. -;; 1. 2. There is distinction between temporary worker and budlee worker. The instant case relates to entitlement under the settlement and the scheme. Thus, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. When the respondents complete 240 days budlee work in a year or block of 12 months, their cases would be considered in the light of the scheme, subject to continuance of the scheme, and change in policy. (Para 12) 1633-A, BJ Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi, (3) and Ors. , 12006) 4 sec 1, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8036-8037 of2004. From the Judgment and Order 04. 04.

2003 of the Calcutta High Court in APOTNo. 278 of2002/G. A. No. 1686 of2002 in W. P. No. 1081 of2000. i· :. L. Nageshwar Rao, Akansha, Neha Sharma and Binu Gupta for the Appellants. Jaideep Gupta, Piyush K. Roy and G. Ramakris_hna Prasad for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in these appeals is to the __, -+ judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the ' Letter~ Patent Appeal filed by the appellant Bank and its functionaries. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: In the year 1986 a panel for appointment of Budlee Sepoys was prepared by the appellant-Bank for engagement on temporary basis (strictly on 'no work no pay') in the leave vacancies and to absorb them in the Bank as and when regular vacancies arise. The scheme for deployment/absorption was formulated on 24. 2.

1988 for Budlee sepoys who appear on center-wise approved panels and who had completed 240 Budlee working days of service as on 1. 2. 1988 in a block of 12 months or a calendar year. It was stipulated in the scheme that on absorption Budlee Sepoys would be continued on the approved panels and would be deployed on leave vacancy on need basis only and would be absorbed in permanent vacancies that may arise in future. 3. The aforesaid scheme clearly stated that absorption/regularization of Budlee Sepoys would be subject to two conditions: (I) completion of 240 days in a block year of 12 months or a calendar year: (2) availability of vacancies arising in future. 4. Respondents who are Budlee workers were engaged on a temporary basis. Letter of engagement to the respondents clearly spells out that their employment was that of seasonal requirement of the appellant-Bank and it ~ was only for a specific period of time on the expiry of which their services will stand terminated.

The relevant stipulations read as follows: "2(i) to fill up immediately the existing clear, unfilled vacancies at Regions/Zones by absorbing Budlee Sepoys preferably from the centre-wise approved panels of Budlee Sepoys who have completed more than 240 working budlee days as on Ist February, 1988 in a block of 12 months or a calendar year. In regard to such unfilled vacancies ifthe required number of Budlee Sepoys, who have completed more than 240 budlee days as on 1st February, 1988 in a block of 12 months -· or a calendar year is not available on approved panel/s such vacancies should be filled in by a board Budlee Sepoys from the respective approved centre-wise panels, who have not completed 240 budlee working days in a block of I2 months of in a calendar year.

This process of absorption has to be completed by you before 30th June, 1988 after obtaining Head Office approval well in time by sending your specific repeat specific approval giving the details of immediately unfilled centre-wise vacancies. xx xx xx (iii) Those of the Budlee Sepoys on approved panel, who have not BANKOFINDIAv. TARUNKR. BISWAN[PASAYAT,J. ) 629 completed 240 days of budlee days' service in a block of 12 months or a calendar year as on 1st February, 1988, are to be continued o~ the panel/s and to be engaged on need basis in leave vacancies only that may arise from time to time at branches where no Budlee Sepo}ls who have completed 240 days are available on panels. Their case for absorption in permanent services of Bank may be considered in permanent vacancies that may arise in subsequent years. " 5.

Writ petitions were filed by the respondents praying for issua'lce of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Bank to regularize service of the respondents as su~ordinate staff in the Bank. It was stated that their names were sponsored by the employment exchange for interview for the recruitment ofsubordinate staffs. Panel was prepared including the names ofwrit petitioners and out of panel, 43 were appointed as staff in different branches of the Bank and 14 persons who had filed writ petition were left out. On different dates between 2nd March, 1986 to 30th June, 1986 writ petitioners were temporarily appointed as subordinate staff along with other candidates.

On 5th December, 1991, the Bank asked the writ petitioners to exercise option for post of 1986 shall also be placed similarly and the persons who completed 240 \ rdays of work in any particular year since 1986 till date shall be given preference in accordance with the list so prepared within the time framed mentioned above. }-- With above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. " r. - Bank challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge, firstly, on I the ground that court changed the scheme for regularization or absorption for i the casual workers by even directing the Bank to consider those who have y ...... r not completed 240 days in a particular year but at least completed 210 ~ays of work, and they shall be considered for absorption and regularization.

It was also contended even though there may be vacancies such vacancies may not be filled up with a view to make the Bank more efficient as well as for controlling operation cost and to improve the prospects of career growth and skills upgradation for employees by rationalizing the manpower and to help the Bank to right size of the growth. It was pointed out that Board of Directors in its meeting held on 28th October, 2000, had approved the Voluntary . _).... __ Retirement Scheme for the employees of the Bank under "Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000". As a matter of fact, after the implementation of the said scheme,' still 900 sub-staff members are in excess I f .. BANKOF INDIAv. TARUNKR. BISWAN[PASAYAT,J. ) 631 of the strength. It was further stated that none of the writ petitioners had completed 240 days work in a year and therefore cannot be absorbed under , the scheme.

Further, in terms of the directions given, an affidavit was filed stating that no writ petitioner had completed 240 days in a year giving details . thereof. Response of the writ petitioners was that each of them completed 240 days of work. It was stated that while making calculations the Bank excluded Sundays and holidays for the purpose of calculations. 7. The Division Bench held that there was no logic for excluding the Sundays and public holidays, The Division Bench, however, observed that learned Single Judge was not justified in directing that those who had worked for 210 days could be considered for absorption. It did not accept the stand that there was factual dispute about the number of days. Relying on the decision ofthis Court in Workmen ofAmerican Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, AIR (1986) SC 458 it was held Sundays and public holidays are also to be reckoned.

The High Court did not find it necessary to consider the effect ofthe Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000. It was held that appellants shall proceed on the basis that each ofthe writ petitioners had completed 240 days in the block of 12 calendar months. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank submitted that in the Jetter of engagement in each case it was clearly stipulated that the employment was for the seasonal requirement and it was only for a specified period of time on the expiry of which their services wou1d stand terminated. The respondents in the representation made before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (dated 16. 2. 2000) had accepted that the appellant did not allow the workmen to work for 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months and thus they had not completed .. 240 days of service. . 9. In the writ petition also in paras 13 and 39 it was clearly admitted that they have not completed the required 240 days of service.

In the light ofthis, prayer for regularization was clearly unacceptable. Without prejudice to the fact that they had not completed 240 days being a model employer, Bank had asked the writ petitioners to exercise their option for some future vacancies which were likely to occur in non-CCA areas outside the Calcutta Metropolitan Area in West Bengal. The respondents failed to exercise their option for the said areas and never expressed willingness to join any non- CCA Bank. The said exercise of option was not binding on the Bank and the letter. of option did not mean any commitment or assurance for appointment. The Bank has surplus staff even after implementation of the Voluntary ·'r- Retirement Scheme, 2000 which was essentially meant for downsizing excess power of the Bank. After acceptance of the YRS options 900 subordinate staff were in excess including the Banks' Kolkatta Zone. There was no permanent vacancy of sub-staff in the Bank.

It was pointed out that position in American Express's case (supra) was factually different. It related to employment of typists in temporary capacities with a number of short breaks, till a specified period oftime when their services stood terminated. There was dispute as to whether Sundays and other holidays for which wages were paid -+ under the law of contract and Statute could be treated as days on which employee "actually worked under the employer" for the purpose of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). It is submitted that the facts involved in the present case are entirely different as they have not admittedly completed 240 days in a calendar year as required by the scheme for their deployment/absorption against permanent vacancies. It was pointed out that no weekly off is given to Budlee worker if he works only for 6 days.

It is only when the engagement ofbudlee Sepoy is more than 6 days at a stretch then weekly off is given after 6 days of work. 'twas also submitted that in view of what has been stated in Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. , [2006] 4 SCC l question of regularization does not arise because there was no enforceable legal right. 10. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Gourt had given finding of fact that the writ petitioners have completed 240 days of work. It was also submitted that in view of what has been stated in American Express's case (supra) the inevitable conclusion is that each of the writ petitioners had completed 240 days. p 11. It is to be noted that the onus is on the employee to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days. The High Court is not right in holding without factual aspect having been established by the respondents that each of them had worked for more than 240 days.

The effect of decision not to fill up the vacancy was also not considered. The effect of change of policy has been considered by this Court in Ram Prakash Makkar v. State of Haryana and Ors. , [1992] 4 SCC 727. Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider the effect thereof. As noted above, the writ petitioners have accepted that they have not completed 240 days of work. · Their stand was that the · management did not permit them to do so. The scheme to which both the appellant and the respondents have referred to in para 2(1) speaks for 240 ,.. days of work in Budlee Service. Similar is the position in para 2 as quoted BANKOF INDIA v. TARUN KR. BISWAN [PASAYAT, J. ] 633 above. The scheme of budlee days is different. It denotes actual working days. American Express's case (supra) has no application as the nature of work is different. Additionally, dispute is about as to whether the respondents had completed 240 budlee days. 12.

There is distinction between temporary worker and budlee worker. The present case relates to entitlement under the settlement and the scheme. That being the position, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. Needless to say that whenever the respondents complete 240 days budlee work in a year or block of 12 months, their cases shall be considered in the light of the scheme, subject to continuance of the scheme, and change in policy if any. 13. Appeals are allowed without any order as to costs. NJ. Appeals allowed. - --1·