Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. In the present appeal, the management of Syndicate Bank challenges the judgment by the learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by twenty respondents herein. In that writ petition, the respondents who were panelists in the panel maintained for temporary attenders challenged a circular dated August 4, 1988, whereby the management directed that the part-time sweepers may be entrusted temporarily with the duties of sub-staff members in the vacancies of regular stab-staff members arising on account of leave or absence subject to the condition that such sweeper should have atleast passed V Standard. It was then directed by the same circular that in case of the non-availability of the eligible part-time sweepers for temporary entrustment, the said employment should be offered to the empanelled candidates amongst the temporary attenders, again subject to the condition that the candidates, who had completed 240 days as temporary attenders as on February 3 (sic), 1984 should be given preference over the other empanelled candidates. The learned Judge has quashed this circular as unreasonable and in addition to it, it is directed that common seniority list should be prepared of the part-time sweepers and temporary attenders and when the occasion arises, the jobs should be offered as per the seniority in the list. It will be better to appreciate few facts in order to consider the controversy involved. It is an admitted position that the Bank maintains a panel of the person who are called temporary attenders. It is also an admitted position that there are two panels of temporary attenders. Firstly consisting of those attenders who had completed 240 days of service as on December 31, 1989 and of the attenders who had exceeded the duty of 90 days but had not completed the duty of 240 days. It is also an admitted position that it is strictly understood in the management that such panelists, who had not completed 240 days of duties should not be allotted the duty, so that they could exceed 89 days of work meaning thereby the panelists in the second panel would be getting the employment for only 89 days in one year. It is further an admitted position that there is a completely different stream of workers who are called the permanent part time sweepers. It is further an admitted position that there is a completely different stream of workers who are called the permanent part time sweepers. They are in regular employment of the Bank though on part-time basis. It seems that while the employees who were the permanent part-time sweepers were members of the union the panelists like petitioners were not the members of the union. There was a settlement between the union and the management of the Bank, in pursuance of the union's demands that instead of offering temporary employment which occasioned from time to time to the panelists like the petitioners, who had not completed 240 days, the first preference should be given to such of the sweepers who had passed the V standard. The natural result of adjustment was that the sweepers in addition to their monthly salary would be earning more than his salary of a job as a temporary attender, as admittedly the pay structure in the case of temporary attenders is better. Thus the petitioners who are the panelists in the panel of workers who had not completed 240 days, would be likely to be side tracked due to the preference given to these sweepers and would be likely to lose their opportunity to be employed even for a short period in the Bank in the posts of temporary attenders. The precise challenge of the petitioners, who are panelists in the panel of workers who had not completed 240 days, say that this meant a total injustice against them and the circular which is the result probably of the understanding between the union and the Bank spelt a differential treatment in favour of the sweepers and discriminatory attitude against the panelists like the petitioners. In their affidavit, the petitioners point out that they expected to be panelists in the fond hope that some day they would be regularised on account of the permanent vacancies occurring in the cadre of temporary attenders, as that is the understanding on which they were empanelled. They also pointed out that they were working for a meagre period of 89 days a year for more than 6 to 7 years and had the necessary qualifications required for the post of temporary attender (sub-staff). They also pointed out that they were working for a meagre period of 89 days a year for more than 6 to 7 years and had the necessary qualifications required for the post of temporary attender (sub-staff). In their affidavit they further contend that if they refuse to accept the work which was being given very sporadically to them, they would face the chances of being ousted from the panel as even that is admittedly a policy of the bank. They pointed out that they were not members of any union, as the Union enrolled only the regular employees like permanent part-time sweepers; but not unfortunate employees, who could serve only for about 89 days a year. They also pointed out while they themselves were through the Employment Exchange, the said sweepers were never routed through the Employment Exchange. They therefore pointed out that in asking the sweepers work in the place of the absent temporary attenders to the exclusion of the candidates, who were both qualified and ready to work as temporary attenders, management of the bank had committed a grave injustice.Learned single Judge accepted these contentions and also accepted the case that such circular meant a total injustice to the empanelled candidates like the petitioners who were working for years together on the sporadic basis in the fond hope of getting the employment some day. Learned Judge held that the sweepers who were being preferred over the empanelled candidates like the petitioners were being offered a better deal causing invidious discrimination against the petitioners and therefore the said circular was quashed by the learned single Judge. Learned Single Judge went into the actual statistics and found that the petitioners were getting comparatively much less work than what they used to get earlier to this circular. The action was tried to be justified by the bank by suggesting that the bank has entered into a settlement with the union of the workmen, firstly to empanel all those temporary attenders who had worked for 240 days and above as on December 31, 1984 either continuously or with breaks and that such candidates were to be regularised in the vacancies occurring. It, therefore, justified the circular that those candidates out of the temporary attenders, who had completed 240 days were to be given preference over the others who had not completed 240 days. It, therefore, justified the circular that those candidates out of the temporary attenders, who had completed 240 days were to be given preference over the others who had not completed 240 days. The bank further, justified giving the preference to part-time sweepers on the basis of the settlement dated April 2/3, 1987. In fact, this settlement appears to be a main stay of the bank's stand. The bank also pleaded that the settlement had force of law and as such they were bound by the settlement. The bank also makes a question of the 25 per cent reservation for the sweepers in the sub-staff posts. Learned Judge did not accept the case of the bank. He pointed out that in so far as those employees who had completed 240 days of work were concerned, their question would be in the different sphere. He also noted that the bank was not questioning the contention of the petitioners that they were (in the event of the jobs being made available) liable to be regularised. The learned Judge therefore held that the said circular, which was "only a joint memo" was not reasonable. In addition to the quashing of the said circular on these grounds, the learned Judge also directed that if such work was to be given, then firstly the seniority list must be prepared which was common to both the sweepers and the temporary attenders and then the work should be allotted only as per the seniority.It is this judgment which is challenged before us. Sri Jayesh Dolia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank, very strenuously contended before us that the bank was bound by the settlement which it had arrived at with the union and therefore there was nothing unreasonable if the bank was acting as per the settlement. Such contention in our opinion, is totally baseless. It is an admitted position that while the sweepers in whose favour the bank seems to have titled have the cover of the protection of the union, the petitioners as also the panelists did not have such a cover nor were the petitioners even the parties to that settlement. It is not the case of the bank that the petitioners were heard before the settlement was arrived at between the management of the bank and the union. This is besides the fact that first came the circular and then the settlement. It is not the case of the bank that the petitioners were heard before the settlement was arrived at between the management of the bank and the union. This is besides the fact that first came the circular and then the settlement. This itself would take away half the wind out of the shields of the management case. Even if there is a settlement with the union by the management of the bank that could not hamper the rights of the panelists like the petitioners, who had an independent protection by reason of their being empanelled. It cannot be denied that the circular which was brought in at the behest of the management would spell disaster for the empanelists and they would be losing very heavily in favour of the permanent part-time sweepers, who would be earning even more than their regular salary because of this opportunity to work as temporary attenders. If the circular had the effect of demolishing the interests of the panelists then we fail to follow as to how there could be an unholy hand shake between the bank and the union to the total exclusion of the panelists who were not protected by the union at all. In our opinion, the learned Judge was absolutely right in holding that the circular was unreasonable, discriminatory and unfair as against the panelists who were serving with the bank for years together sporadically almost not more than 89 days a year and were waiting for their turn to be regularised. A circular which would wrest them of even this meagre employment of 89 days could not be brought into existence by the bank firstly unless the panelists were heard and secondly unless these panelists were themselves regularised totally. Nothing of the sort was done and therefore, in our opinion, the defence raised by the bank before the single Judge as well as before us that the management of the bank was bound by the settlement with the union must crumble.Learned counsel, however, then pointed out to us that the learned single Judge had directed that such temporary "sporadic employment" should be offered by making a common seniority list of the sweepers and the temporary attenders. Learned counsel pointed out that this could not be done as the sweepers and the temporary attenders came from entirely different streams and form entirely two different cadres and therefore, there could be no comparison. We agree with the contention. To make a common list of these two streams would be to treat the unequals as the equals, which would not be possible. We therefore, only observe that the bank need not prepare any such list and should continue with the position which was immediately before the circular. The subsequent settlement will not bind the rights of the petitioners or as the case may be of the other panelists in the panel. We hasten to add that the preparation of a common seniority list was not even the prayer of the petitioners. We therefore, modify the order only to that extent. With this observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. In the circumstances, however, without any order as to costs.