Judgment 1. These two matters have been taken up for final hearing together as the same net of facts are involved in both the matters, although, the reliefs prayed for are different. The application made on the Appellate Side is prior in point of time and the petitioners therein are the trade union and its office bearers representing one set of daily-rated peons employed by the United Industrial Bank which was subsequently merged with Allahabad Bank. The petitioners in the other writ application are another trade union and its General Secretary representing some of the other daily-rated peons employee by the erstwhile United Industrial Bank. 2. In order to appreciate the questions which have been posed in these two applications, it will be necessary to briefly set out the facts leading to conciliation proceedings which ended in a reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta, being Reference No. 21 of 1990, and the Award passed therein on 15th May, 1992. 3. According to the petitioners in Matter No. 879 of 1994, the erstwhile United Industrial Bank of India Limited had been engaging daily-rated peons, hereinafter referred to as "D.R.Ps", since 1978, in order to meet the day to day work in the Bank, and, although, the number of D.R.Ps were about 600 in the year 1989, they were not absorbed or given appointment on a regular basis against available vacancies. 4. It is also the petitioners case in both the applications that pursuant to an application made by the Reserve Bank of India under, Section 45(1) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, the United Industrial Bank of India Limited was amalgamated with Allahabad Bank with effect from 31st October, 1989, under a scheme of amalgamation approved by the Government of India. Pursuant to such amalgamation, which was duly notified in the Official Gazette, all the liabilities, duties and obligations of the United Industrial Bank of India Limited, referred to in the scheme as the Transferor Bank, stool transferred to and became the liabilities, duties and obligations of the Allahabad Bank, which was referred to as the Transferee Bank, to the extent and in the manner as provided in the scheme of amalgamation. 5. 5. It appears that prior to such amalgamation certain representations were made by the D. R.Ps to the management of the United Industrial Bank of India Limited regarding their absorption against regular vacancies, and the same was referred by the management of the Hankta the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi. With the amalgamation of the two banks, the said industrial dispute, which was then pending before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta, was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. 6. According to the petitioners in C.R.No. 9139(W) of 1993, the management of the Bank delayed the conciliation proceedings and the said petitioners accordingly moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction for appropriate directions to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta, to recommence and expedite the conciliation proceedings. In the said writ application, while considering two applications for addition of parties, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Calcutta, to recommence the conciliation proceeding and to proceed on a day to day basis, and to submit his report to the appropriate government within a week of completion of the conciliation I proceedings. The appropriate government in its turn was directed to form its opinion within the meaning of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the report of the Conciliation Officer. Till such time as the conciliation proceedings were not completed, the Bank authorities were given liberty to requisition the services of D.R Ps from the list which was being maintained by the erstwhile United Industrial Bank of India Limited and the Bank authorities were directed not to appoint anyone from outside in that regard. It was also made clear that the Bank authorities could hold a selection test in respect of posts other than those of peons/farashes, Significantly, no appeal was preferred by any of the parties against the said order passed by the learned Judge on 27th July, 1990. 7. During the continuance of the conciliation proceedings, the management of the Allahabad Bank informed the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta, by its letter dated 20th February, 1990, that they had made a proposal to the Banking Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to hold a selection test for preparation of a panel for appointment of daily-rated Icons, 8. 7. During the continuance of the conciliation proceedings, the management of the Allahabad Bank informed the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta, by its letter dated 20th February, 1990, that they had made a proposal to the Banking Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to hold a selection test for preparation of a panel for appointment of daily-rated Icons, 8. As mentioned hereinbefore, the dispute was ultimately referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta by an Order of Reference dated 17th September, 1990 for adjudication as to whether those D. R. Ps who had been serving the erstwhile United Industrial Bank of India Ltd. were entitled to be automatically absorbed in the regular establishment of the Allahabad bank after amalgamation on completion of 240 days of service in a year on or before the prescribed date, and, if not, to what relief would they be entitled. 9. By its Award dated 15th May, 1992 the learned Tribunal inter alia, held that the 592 D.R Ps who had been mentioned in the Order of Reference dated 17th September, 1990, and who had completed 240 days of service in a year on or before the date indicated would be entitled to employment Subject to availability of work in the Allahabad Bank and, if necessary, in any of its branches in India. It was clarified that 240 days employment in a year did not necessarily mean continuous employment for 240 days. 10. As far as the D.R.P. who were not included in the list of 592 D.R.Ps, are concerned, the learned Tribunal held that they could not be automatically absorbed as in the case of the said 592 D.R.Ps, but in their cases, the Transferee Bank would have to be guided by guidelines, Rules. Regulations and N0tifications, as applicable. 11. The learned Tribunal further held that the Notice issued by the Transferee Bank for holding a Selection Test for appointment to the post of D.R.P was not unauthorised so for as it related to D.R.Ps who had not been included in the Order of Reference dated 17th September, 1990. 12. Regulations and N0tifications, as applicable. 11. The learned Tribunal further held that the Notice issued by the Transferee Bank for holding a Selection Test for appointment to the post of D.R.P was not unauthorised so for as it related to D.R.Ps who had not been included in the Order of Reference dated 17th September, 1990. 12. According to the Allahabad Bank Workers Union, despite the aforesaid Award, a settlement was arrived at between the management of the Bank and the All India Allahabad Bank Employees Co-ordination Committee on 17th November, J 992, and it was agreed that appointment of persons engaged on a temporary basis in the subordinate cadre in the Allahabad Bank, as also the United Industrial Bank of India Ltd., would be on the basis of a selection test which was to be advertised by the management of the Bank. 13. It appears that many of the D R. Ps appeared for the written test which was held on 25th July, 1993. but some of them represented by the United Industrial Bank Austhayee Adhastan (DRP) Karmachari Samity challenged the holding of such selection test in Civil Rule No. 9139(W) of 1993, which is one of the two writ application presently under consideration. 14. In the said writ application, a learned Judge of this Court allowed the written test to be held for recruitment of full time peons/cum-farash/full time sweeper and directed that the selection process could continue, but no appointment was to be given without the leave of the Court, and all steps which may be taken by the Allahabad Bank, would be subject to the result of the writ petition. 15. While considering an application for addition of parties made by some of the candidates who had sat for the written test, the learned Judge by a further order dated 12th October, 1993, directed the Bank to publish the result, but not to give effect to the same 16. According to the writ petitioners in the writ application filed by Allahabad Bank Workers' Union and Others, in order to bypass the orders passed by this Court, the Bank authorities began taking steps to hold a selection test on 6th March, 1994, for recruitment of peons/cum-farashes from outside candidates. Such alleged action on the part of the Bank authorities is the subject matter of challenge in both the writ applications under consideration. 17. Such alleged action on the part of the Bank authorities is the subject matter of challenge in both the writ applications under consideration. 17. Appearing in support of the writ application filed by the Allahabad Bank Workers' Union, Mr. Mukul Prokash Banerjee firstly submitted that the Award passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta was very clear with regard to the absorption of the 592 D. R. Ps whose services were utilised initially by the United Industrial Bank of India Ltd. and whose names were mentioned in the Order of Reference dated 17th September, 1990. Mr. Banerjee submitted that the Learned Tribunal had held that the said D. R. Ps would be entitled to the regularised on a permanent basis by the Allahabad Bank after the merger of the two Banks but the other D.R.Ps could not be treated on a similar footing and in their cases the Bank would have to be guided by such guidelines, rules and regulations as were applicable in the matter of recruitment in the subordinate cadre. 18. Mr. Banerjee submitted that till such time as the cases of the 592 D.R. Ps mentioned in the Order of Reference were duly settled, the respondent Bank should not be allowed to bold selection test for recruitment of persons in the subordinate cadre from outside candidates 19 Appearing for the other set of writ petitioners in C.R. No 9139(W) of 1993. Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra submitted that on a proper construction of paragraph 38 of the Award, it would be quite evident that the findings regarding entitlement of the D.R. Ps to be considered for regular employment in the Bank, was not confined only to the 592 D. R. Ps, whose names had been included in the list maintained by the erstwhile United Industrial Bank of India Ltd, and whose names were also mentioned in the Order of Reference, but to all D.R. Ps who had completed 240 days of service in a year. Mr. Moitra submitted that paragraph 39 of the Award would make it more clear that the Bank would also have to employ persons, other than those whose names had been included in the Order of Reference. Mr. Mr. Moitra submitted that paragraph 39 of the Award would make it more clear that the Bank would also have to employ persons, other than those whose names had been included in the Order of Reference. Mr. Moitra urged further that the said position would also be corroborated from paragraph 40 of the Award wherein the learned Tribunal had held that the notice given for holding selection test was not unauthorised so far as the D. R. Ps, other than those mentioned in paragraph 38, were concerned. 20. Mr. Moitra urged that having regard to such findings of the learned Tribunal, even those D.R.Ps. whose names had not been included in the Order of Reference, would be entitled to be considered for appointment in the subordinate cadre of the Bank. 21. Regarding the interpretation of the Award in its application to the D. R. Ps who had been mentioned in the. Order of Reference, as opposed to those whose names had not been so mentioned, Mr. Moitra submitted that the Award itself should not be construed as a Statute, and on the other hand, although, it may become necessary for judges to go into lengthly discussions, such discussions were meant to explain and not to define. 22 In support of his said submission, Mr. Moitra firstly referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) M/s. Amar Nath Om Parkash v State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1985 SC at Page 218. Mr. Moitra also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of (2) Indira Bai v. Nand Kishore, reported in 1990(4) SCC at. page 668, in support of his contention that Courts in India are primarily Courts of equity, Justice and good conscience, and such principles could be invoked where parties act fairly and net against public policy. 23. Mr. Moitra also contended that merely because the Tribunal had observed that the Order of Reference included only 592 D.R. Ps, it did not automatically mean that the cases of the other D.R. Ps could not be considered for recruitment to the subordinate cadre of the Bank. 24. In this behalf Mr. 23. Mr. Moitra also contended that merely because the Tribunal had observed that the Order of Reference included only 592 D.R. Ps, it did not automatically mean that the cases of the other D.R. Ps could not be considered for recruitment to the subordinate cadre of the Bank. 24. In this behalf Mr. Moitra referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the (3) Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Calcutta Discount Company Lid, reported in AIR 1970 SC at Page 1358, wherein the Supreme Court observed that procedural technicalities must not influence: Tribunals or Courts in granting relief. Mr Moitra urged that if apart from the 592 D.R. Ps mentioned in the Order of Reference, there were other D.R.Ps who had also completed 240 days of service in a year, then, in such even they too should be given the benefit being sought to be given by the Tribunal to the 592 persons whose names had been included in the list of D. R. Ps maintained by the erstwhile United Industrial Bank of India Ltd. 25. Mr. Moitra concluded by submitting that in any event there could be no justification for not acting on the basis of the results published, since those D.R. Ps who had agreed to sit for the written examination should not be kept waiting indefinitely merely because the cases of the 592 D.R. Ps were yet to be settled. 26. Appearing for the respondent Bank in both the writ applications, Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee submitted that it was the petitioners grievance in both the writ applications that those who had worked for 240 days or more in a calender year, had not been absorbed by the Bank in terms of paragraph 33 of the Award. According to Mr. Mukherjee, some of them had already been absorbed, as would be evident from Annexure "A" to the Affidavit-in-Opposition affirmed on behalf of the respondent Bank in C. R No. 9139(W) of 1993. 27. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee submitted that after having considered the cases of the 592 D. R. Ps for absorption in the regular establishment the Bank authorities had decided to recruit persons in the subordinate cadre from out Side candidates and for which purpose a written test was directed to be held. Mr. 27. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee submitted that after having considered the cases of the 592 D. R. Ps for absorption in the regular establishment the Bank authorities had decided to recruit persons in the subordinate cadre from out Side candidates and for which purpose a written test was directed to be held. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that since all the 592 D.R Ps were not eligible for absorption in the regular establishment in terms of the Award, the Bank had no choice but to take steps for recruitment from outside candidates by holding a selection test in which those D.R. Ps who had not qualified for absorption, could also appear for recruitment to the subordinate cadre of the Bank. 28. On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the materials on record, the answer to the problems posed in the two writ applications appear to be fairly simple. 29. The claim of the D. R Ps whose names were maintained by the erstwhile United industrial Bank of India Ltd. for absorption in the regular cadre of the Allahabad Bank after merger of the former Bank with the latter, has been answered by the learned Tribunal in the affirmative, subject to their having completed 240 days of service in a year on or before the date of merger. In accordance with the said findings of the learned Tribunal, the Allahabad Bank also appears to have absorbed such of the candidates who were eligible in terms of the conditions laid down and to recruit further members in the subordinate cadre from outsiders. It is not as if the Bank has taken any steps to bypass the claim of the 592 D.R. Ps in terms of the Award. 30. Accordingly, the writ petitioners in both the writ applications can have no grievance against the holding of a selection test to fill up the vacancies in the subordinate cadre of the Bank from outside candidates, after considering the claims of those of the 592 D. R. Ps who were eligible to be directly absorbed in the regular establishment. 31. 30. Accordingly, the writ petitioners in both the writ applications can have no grievance against the holding of a selection test to fill up the vacancies in the subordinate cadre of the Bank from outside candidates, after considering the claims of those of the 592 D. R. Ps who were eligible to be directly absorbed in the regular establishment. 31. On behalf of the Bank it has been made quite clear that those candidates from amongst the 592 D. R. Ps who were eligible, have been directly absorbed in the regular establishment without holding any selection test, and only after the claims of the 592 D. R. Ps had been considered had the Bank taken steps to recruit candidates in the subordinate cadre from outside candidates after holding a selection test, which it was entitled to do. 32. In that view of the matter, I dispose of both the writ applications by directing the management of the Allahabad Bank to first of all complete recruitment to the subordinate cadre of the Bank by absorption from amongst the 592 D. R. Ps mentioned in the Order of Reference and, thereafter, to take steps for selection of other candidates on basis of the results published in respect of the examination already held. 33. I once again make it clear that the cases of outside candidates are to be considered only when the claims for direct absorption of the 592 D R. Ps mentioned in paragraph 38 of the Award have been duly considered. 34. There will be no order as to costs. 35. Prayer for stay of the order made on behalf of the Bank is considered and refused in view of the observations made hereinabove. Let a xerox copy of this order be made available to the learned Advocates of the respective parties on the usual undertakings.