Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010192032018 2025:GAU-AS:16235 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6103/2018 UNITED BANK OF INDIA A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 16, OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, KOKATA- 700001 AND A REGIONAL OFFICE AT CACHAR REGION, SILCHAR, ASSAM AND REP. BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR, AND ANR. GHY, ASSAM 2:SRI SANKAR NATH S/O- LT SUDHIR NATH R/O- VILL- RUPAGRAM P.O. BIDYANAGAR (VIANIPUR) DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78873 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. S Dutta Senior Advocate Mr. S Dutta Page No.# 2/13 Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. LC Dey Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 25.11.2025 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. S Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. LC Dey, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the Award dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No.59/2013. For deciding the legality and validity of the Award dated 20.02.2018 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the impugned award’), it is relevant to take note of some of the brief facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petition. Page No.# 3/13 3. A Circular bearing No. PD/DIR/31/OM-370/2003 dated 29.10.2003 was issued by the United bank of India for appointment of Subordinate employees from the eligible Canteen Boys/Casual Labourers of the Bank as a one-time measure. The eligibility conditions were provided in Clause-2 in respect of the Canteen Boys and Clause-3 in respect of Casual Employees/ Labourers. 4. The eligibility conditions insofar as Canteen Boys were concerned were: (i). That the Canteen Boys, who have worked for not less than 8(eight) years (uninterrupted) as on the date of the issuance of the Circular in any Canteen run by Canteen Committee of the employees of the Branch / Office of the Bank, where at least 25 number of employees are posted would be eligible to apply for the post of Sub- Staff. In that regard a Certificate from the Canteen Committee duly authenticated by the Head of the concerned Branch / Office of the Bank for the period of work in the Canteen is to be produced along with the application. (ii). The Canteen Boys should have registered their names in the Employment Exchanges and the requisite Certificate to that effect is to be produced before the Bank Management with the application. Page No.# 4/13 5. Sub-clauses-(b) and Sub-clauses (c) relate to age and educational qualification respectively. 6. The eligibility conditions in respect to Casual Labourers, which is in Clause No.3 are that the Casual Labourers, who have completed 240 days in 12 consecutive calendar months in any of the years in the past. Secondly, the Casual Labourers should have registered their names in the Employment Exchanges and the requisite certificate to that effect is to be produced with the application. 7. Clause-5 of the said Circular stipulated that the said scheme was a one-time measure and would cease automatically upon the completion of the said process. 8. In the backdrop of the above Circular, it is very pertinent to take note of that an industrial dispute arose between the Management of the United Bank of India, Zonal Office at Ulubari and the Workmen, represented by the President, United Bank of India Employees’ Association and a Notification under Section 10 was made by the appropriate Government, making the fair following reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred to the as ‘the learned Tribunal’). The reference which was made reads as under: Page No.# 5/13 “Whether any employer-employee relationship exists between the management of United Bank of India, Zonal Office, Guwahati and the 97 workmen (as per list attached)? Whether the claim of UBI Employees’ Association for empanelling them and their regularization in subordinate cadre from the respective date of their joining is justified? If not, what relief those workmen are entitled to?” 9. The said proceedings which was registered as Reference Case No.20/2004 was disposed of by an Award dated 25.10.2010. Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the said award being relevant are reproduced hereinunder: “15. I have reconsidered the suave submission advanced by the representatives of both the parties. Law is settled that no appointment shall be made dehors recruitment rule. Reliance can be placed on (2006) 4 SCC 1, Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. -Vs- Umadevi and Ors. In another recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 4 SCC, State of Karnataka and Ors -Vs- G.V. Chandrasekhar, wherein, the Apex Court has reiterated that ad hoc appointment even if, it continues for a long period cannot be ordered to be regularized. In another decision reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Apex Court had held "The equality clause as enshrined in Article 16 mandates that every appointment to public post or office should be made by open advertisement so as to enable to eligible person to compete for selection on merit". Admittedly, the present canteen boys/workmen have not complied with the requirement as prescribed in the established principles of law. So their services cannot be regularized. But the real issue as it appears involved in this dispute is, whether the canteen boys/workmen have complied with the requirement of the Circular dated 29.10.2003 (Annexure-10) and whether they can be appointed as subordinate Bank employees. It is evident that the canteen boys/workmen applied for appointment as subordinate employees of the Bank as per Circular dated 29.10.2003 in the prescribed Form issued by the Bank duly countersigned by the respective Branch Managers. Page No.# 6/13 Thereafter, nothing had happened. They are still hopeful of getting the appointment in the Bank, However, it is not known to this Court as to whether recruitment process has been started or not in view of the Circular dated 29.10.2003. 16. Having heard both sides and having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the matter, the Management Bank is hereby directed to take appropriate step, if not taken already for proper implementation of the Circular under reference in letter and spirit. If the canteen boys/workmen are found suitable for appointment in view of the above circular their case may be considered by the Management Bank.” 10. From a perusal of the above-quoted paragraphs, it would be seen that the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to take appropriate steps, if not already taken for proper implementation of the Circular dated 29.10.2003 and if the Canteen Boys/Workmen were found suitable for appointment in view of the above Circular, their case may be considered by the Management Bank. It is relevant to take note of that the said award had attained finality upon being notified. 11. In the backdrop of the above, it is further pertinent to take note of the case of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 claimed that he was initially engaged as a Canteen Boy as well as a Casual Labourer at the UBI Dullab Cherra Branch Karimganj w.e.f. 02.02.1991. 12. It is the further case of the respondent No.2 that the Branch Page No.# 7/13 Manager of the UBI Dullab Cherra Branch had intermittently issued various directions since the year 2001, thereby directing the respondent No.2 to carry out various forms of work like Night Guard on casual basis, broom and wash the bank premises on casual basis and even certified on 15.11.2003 that the respondent No.2 had been rendering service w.e.f.01.01.2003 till 15.11.2003 as a Casual Labourer on daily basis. 13. The respondent No.2 had also submitted an application on 12.11.2003, in terms with the Circular dated 29.10.2003 for being absorbed as a Sub-ordinate employee. It is the further case of the respondent No.2 that he was transferred from the Dullab Cherra UBI Branch, Karimganj to Mizoram in the New Mizoram University Branch of the UBI and this aspect would be clear from the letter dated 28.07.2008 issued by the Senior Manager of the UBI of the petitioner Bank. Thereupon, the respondent No.2 on account of his ill health came back to Karimganj and again joined the UBI, Dullab Cherra Branch. 14. The respondent No.2 thereupon while rendering service in the month of November 2008 was verbally terminated and this fact that the respondent No.2 was terminated is evident from the letter dated 17.11.2008 issued by the Branch Manager to the Chief Regional Page No.# 8/13 Manager to reconsider the termination of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 thereupon submitted various representations, but to no avail and as the dispute continued, a Notification was issued by the appropriate Government, thereby referring the dispute to the learned Tribunal. The question which was referred reads as under: “Whether the action of the Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Cachar Region, Silchar in terminating the service of Shri Sankar Nath from the United Bank of India, Dullabcherra Branch who has rendered continuous 17(seventeen) years of service at different places is justified? If so, whether Shri Sankar Nath is entitled to be regularised or at least be reinstated?” 15. Upon the said reference being sent to the learned Tribunal, a reference case being Reference Case No.59/2013 was registered. 16. The record further reveals that both parties exchanged pleadings and adduced evidence. The learned Tribunal by the Award dated 20.02.2018 held that the respondent No.2 was entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and further the petitioner Bank was directed to take appropriate steps to implement the Circular dated 29.10.2003 in respect to the absorption of the respondent No.2 in the subordinate cadre of the Bank, subject to his eligibility in terms and provisions of the said Circular dated 29.10.2003 issued by the bank. The said directions were to be complied within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the award. Page No.# 9/13 17. The petitioner bank being aggrieved had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. This Court by the order dated 06.09.2018 issued rule and further stayed the impugned award dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in Reference Case No.59/2013. 18. It is seen that pursuant to the notice being issued, the respondent No.2 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition as well as also an additional affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner. 19. At this stage, it is of vital importance to take note of that prior to the impugned Award being passed on 20.02.2018, the Circular dated 29.10.2003 was withdrawn by the United Bank of India on 26.02.2011. 20. In the backdrop of the above, this Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had also perused the materials on record. 21. The issue involved herein is as regards the legality and validity of the impugned Award and, more particularly, the directions passed by the learned Tribunal directing the petitioner Management to consider Page No.# 10/13 the case of the petitioner in terms with the Circular dated 29.10.2003, that too, when the said Circular, was not in existence, when the dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal and the reference proceedings were initiated in the year 2013. 22. This Court further finds it relevant to observe the submission of Mr. S Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in respect to the other directions in the impugned Award, the petitioner is not contesting the directions to make payment of the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Under such circumstances, the question, therefore, of going into the legality or validity of the directions for payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is not gone into. 23. The question, however, arises in the instant proceeding is as to whether this Court can permit the directions so passed by the learned Tribunal insofar as consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms with the Circular dated 29.10.2003 to subsist, taking into account that the said Circular is no longer in operation even prior to the dispute having been referred and registered before the learned Tribunal. 24. The law is well settled that the Court as well as the Tribunal cannot direct absorption unless and until the State or the employer Page No.# 11/13 has a scheme for absorption. It is also no longer res integra that the court cannot also direct formulation of a Scheme by the employer. 25. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal, instead of deciding on the question as to whether the termination of the services of the respondent No.2 was justified or not, directed the petitioner herein to consider the case of the respondent No.2 in terms of the Circular which was not in existence, that too, also without taking into account that the Circular was not an issue involved in the said proceedings. 26. It is the opinion of this Court that the learned Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in passing the directions upon the petitioner bank to implement the Circular dated 29.10.2003 which was no longer in existence, and to consider the case of the respondent No.2 in terms with the said Circular. 27. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the materials on record ought to have considered as to whether the termination of the respondent No.2 was justified or not. As noted above, the termination of the respondent No. 2 happened in the year 2008 as alleged and as on the date on which the present writ petition is being taken up 17 years had passed by. Remanding the said dispute again to the learned Tribunal for a Page No.# 12/13 decision would only lead to further agony of the respondent No.2. It is the opinion of this Court that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 be brought to a close. 28. The materials on record show that the respondent No.2 had rendered substantial years of service, as would be apparent from the very communication dated 17.11.2008 issued by the Chief Branch Manager to the Chief Manager of the petitioner Bank. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the compensation which was awarded to the respondent No.2 is meager and, as such, this Court enhances the said compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i). This Court interferes with the impugned Award dated 20.02.2018, passed in Reference Case No.59/2013 to the extent of the directions issued upon the petitioner bank to implement the Circular dated 29.10.2003 in respect to absorption of the respondent No.2 in the Subordinate cadre of the Bank. (ii). This Court enhances the compensation to be paid to the respondent No.2 by the petitioner Bank from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. The same be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of the present judgment. Page No.# 13/13 29. The records be returned back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Shivani Gautam Digitally signed by Shivani Gautam Date: 2025.12.04 12:17:47 +05'30'