R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) ALL the aforesaid writ petitions are directed against the common award dated July 17, 1996 and questions of fact and law involved are identical. All the petitions can thus be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment to which parties have no objection. Writ Petition No. 35145 of 1996 shall be the leading case. ( 2 ) FACTS, in short, giving rise to these petitions are that Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kan-pur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) appointed respondents workmen in these petitions as clerks for the period May 5, 1981 to July 22, 1981 and then from August 4, 1981 to August 13, 1981. From August 14, 1981 they were not allowed to work on these posts. The concerned workmen raised an Industrial dispute which was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal vide order dated August 20, 1986. Both the parties filed their written statements and adduced evidence. The case of the workmen was that there were permanent vacancies of clerks on which they were appointed for a definite period. Their appointment was to meet the work of permanent nature though the appointment was temporary one and they were entitled to continue on the posts. However, by adopting unfair labour practice opposite parties did not allow them to work on their posts though juniors were allowed to continue. In their place fresh hands were recruited but they were not given opportunity. In this way the employer bank committed breach of sections 25-C and 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The action of the employer was also against the provision of Bipartite Settlement, Shastri Award and Desai award. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner bank, on the other hand, was that the claim of the workmen is highly belated. Their appointment was for a specific period in leave vacancies. As the ap pointment came to an end by efflux of time, it was not a case of retrenchment and it was cov ered by the provisions of Section 2 (bb) (oo) of the Act. As it did not amount to retrenchment, Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act have no ap plication. As the ap pointment came to an end by efflux of time, it was not a case of retrenchment and it was cov ered by the provisions of Section 2 (bb) (oo) of the Act. As it did not amount to retrenchment, Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act have no ap plication. It has also been submitted that re-: cruitment to the post of clerk is made through the Banking Service Recruitment Board and the concerned workmen could not be inducted in service without successfully appearing in the examination. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, recorded finding that the claim of the workmen is not stale and is not liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. All the concerned workmen were appointed in clear vacancies and were discharging work of a permanent nature. However, they worked in the bank for the period of 80 to 90 days. Then it was also found that as the dispute is in respect of the period 1981 and provisions of Section 32 (bb) (oo) of the Act came in force on august 17, 1984, the provision will not be applicable and termination of employment of the workmen amounted to retrenchment, that Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act are independent and their application is not dependent on the application of Section 25-F of the Act. There is no evidence to establish the violation of Section 25-G of the Act. However, the bank committed violation of Section 25-H of the Act as the concerned workmen were not afforded opportunity and fresh recruitments were made. It may be true that the recruitment on the post of clerk is made through the Banking Service Recruitment Board but the claim of the concerned workmen can be defeated only when it is shown that they were given opportunity to appear in the test and they railed to pass it. The concerned workmen are responsible for the delay in disposal of the case and they are not entitled for any back wages. However, there was violation of Section 25-H of the Act and they are entitled to reinstatement in service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated July 17,1996, petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. However, there was violation of Section 25-H of the Act and they are entitled to reinstatement in service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated July 17,1996, petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) SHRI Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the respondent-workmen worked for total 79 days in the year 1981. Their appointment was for a fixed period in leave vacancy and it cannot amount to retrenchment. The view taken by the tribunal is incorrect and suffers from manifest errors of law. Learned counsel has also submitted that the policy adopted by the bank as directed by the Central Government is that recruitment on the post of Clerk shall be made through the Banking Service Recruitment Board and as none of the workmen has passed the test, the award directing their reinstatement is unjustified. Reliance has been placed in the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Bishambhar Dun reported in (1997-II-LLJ-381 ). Learned Counsel also placed before the Court the Bipartite Settlement of 1966. Learned counsel referred to paras. 20. 7 and 20. 8 and submitted that temporary engagement could be made for a short time and it cannot be said that by giving employment to workmen for short period the bank committed any illegality. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents, on the other hand submitted, that the petitioner indulged in unfair labour practice as after terminating the employment of the workmen they again engaged temporary hands without giving any opportunity to the respondent- workmen who were retrenched employees. They were not given any opportunity to appear in any test for permanent recruitment to the post and the violation of Section 25-H of the Act has been fully established. Reliance has been placed in a judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7029 of 1994 Management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Their Workmen and Another. ( 7 ) I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of paragraphs 20. 7 and 20. 8 of the Bipartite Settlement of 1966 there is no doubt that Bank could engage temporary hands in the circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph. ( 7 ) I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of paragraphs 20. 7 and 20. 8 of the Bipartite Settlement of 1966 there is no doubt that Bank could engage temporary hands in the circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph. However, their own document, annexure 3 of the writ petition, which has been stated to be a policy adopted for making recruitments, provides certain norms. Para. l whereof provides that as far as possible temporary appointment should have to be avoided and in no case such appointment should be allowed in casual leave arrangement. No temporary appointment should however, be made without approval of the Regional Heads in advance in case of appointment in clerical grade. Para 2 provides that the requisition of candidates for temporary appointments in clerical cadre should be made through respective Banking Service Recruitment Board. If the Banking service Recruitment Board is not in a position to provide approved persons, the candidate should be requisitioned from the local Employment Exchange. If the Board as well as the Employment exchanges wherever these exist, are not able to provide candidates, the branches may be allowed to make their own arrangement strictly according to the norms. Here there is nothing on the record from either side to show that the aforesaid norms were complied with. However, the tribunal has recorded a finding that the appointment of the concerned workmen was not against any leave vacancy. The petitioner could not adduce sufficient evidence to prove this fact. It has also been proved that after terminating the employment of respondent workmen again temporary hands were engaged ignoring their claim. The relevant finding recorded by the Tribunal in para 12 may be reproduced here: "however, it has been proved from the evidence of V. N. Sekhari and other witnesses that subsequent to termination of concerned workmen, new hands have been taken and no opportunity to the concerned workmen was given. Indeed this fact was not disputed on behalf of the management even during the course of arguments. In this way, it is held that when the new hands were recruited in place of concerned workmen they were not afforded opportunity. In this way, there has been breach of Section 25-H of the I. D. Act. Indeed this fact was not disputed on behalf of the management even during the course of arguments. In this way, it is held that when the new hands were recruited in place of concerned workmen they were not afforded opportunity. In this way, there has been breach of Section 25-H of the I. D. Act. In the case it has been held that because of breach of Section 25-H of the I. D. Act their termination would be void in law. It is held accordingly. " ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, there remains no doubt that petitioner committed breach of Section 25-H of the Act which reads as under: "25-H Re-employment of retrenched workmen. Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons he shall in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for reemploy-ment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for reemployment shall have preference over other persons. " Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)creates an obligation on the employer to prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated. Rule 78 provides for reemployment of the retrenched workmen. The rule has a material bearing in the present case which is being reproduced below:"78 Re-employment of retrenched workmen. At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are to. be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of these vacancies by registered post to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefor, to the address given by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter. " ( 9 ) FROM a perusal of Rule 78 it is clear that as it was a case of retrenchment, the petitioner was under a legal obligation to give notice to the respondent workmen days before the vacancies are to be filled to ofter themselves for re-employment. Rule 78 does not create any distinction between temporary employment or permanent employment. Rule 78 does not create any distinction between temporary employment or permanent employment. If there was a case of retrenchment in both the cases, the petitioner was under obligation to give opportunity to the concerned workmen to offer himself for re- employment, and he was also entitled for a preference over others. However, this was subject to the test, if any, prescribed for such appointment. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner bank discharged this legal obligation created by section 25-H read with Rule 78 before making fresh recruitment on the post either on temporary or permanent basis. In the circumstances the breach of Section 25-H of the Act has been fully established and the workmen were entitled for the relief. The vital question now for coasideration is what relief could be granted to the concerned workmen in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As clear from the policy adopted for the recruitment on the post of clerks, which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, and has been mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner could employ clerks directly also in case the Banking Service Recruitment Board or Employment Exchange is not in a position to provide approved persons. Para 2 of the policy is very material which is being reproduced below: "para 2. Further the requisition of candidates for temporary appointments in clerical cadre should be made from the respective Banking Service Recruitment Board. If Banking Service recruitment Board is not in a position to provide approved persons, the candidate should be requisitioned from the local Employment Exchange. If the Boards as well as the Employment exchanges wherever these exist, are not able to provide the candidates, the branches may be allowed to make their own arrangements strictly according to the norms. " ( 10 ) THERE is no averment in the writ petition as to in what manner the posts on which the respondent workmen had worked were filled. The policy adopted does not contain a complete prohibition that the recruitment to such post could be made through the Banking Service recruitment Board and not otherwise. " ( 10 ) THERE is no averment in the writ petition as to in what manner the posts on which the respondent workmen had worked were filled. The policy adopted does not contain a complete prohibition that the recruitment to such post could be made through the Banking Service recruitment Board and not otherwise. In the circumstances, after this long period of 15 years it will neither be proper nor just nor in the ends of justice to relegate the concerned workmen to any test conducted by the Banking Service Recruitment Board to judge their suitability for the post. In my opinion the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case before Honble the Supreme Court reported in (1997-II-LLJ-381 ). In the case before Honble supreme Court there were Rules providing procedure for recruitment against which appointment could not be made. Thus, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in giving relief of reinstatement to the respondent-workmen and the award does not suffer from any error of law. ( 11 ) THE petitions have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. .