Judgment :- Petitioner, a trade union, is challenging Ext.P4 award of the Labour Court, Kozhikode, upholding the selection of second respondent as Head Security Guard of the security staff at the Civil Station Branch of State Bank Bank of Travancore, Kannur in preference to another security guard in the same unit by name Mr. M.C. Chandran Nambiar, who is senior in service to the second respondent by three years. The Civil Station Branch of the SBT, Kannur, which did not have regular security unit constituted a security unit vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 1-9-1993. Four security guards from various branches of SBT were transferred and posted at the Civil Station Branch at Kannur, vide Ext.P1 common order of transfer constituting security unit of the Bank at the Branch there. From among four persons appointed as security guards at Civil Station Kannur, the person shown first in Ext.P1, namely, MC. Chandran Nambiar, was admittedly senior to the second respondent (S1.No.7 in Ext.P1) by three years. In fact, the Branch Manager of the Bank declared Mr. M.C. Chandran Nambiar as Head of the Security Guards unit at the Civil Station, Kannur. However, later, the order was changed and the second respondent was declared as Head of the Security Guards of the unit on the ground that the second respondent joined the Branch on transfer vide Ext.P1 on 7-9-1993 while M.C. Chandran Nambiar joined the Branch only on 23-9-1993. The case of the petitioner is that the person named first in Ext.P1 being senior in service should have been appointed as Head of the security guards and not the second respondent who was junior in service to the other person by three years. However, the Bank rejected the claim and appointed second respondent on the ground that Head Guard has to be selected in terms of settlement between the employees’ Union and the Bank which provides for appointment of senior most guard from among members of the guards in the same Centre. At the request of the petitioner, the issue was referred to the Labour Court, Kozhikode, and the Labour Court vide Ext.P4 award confirmed the decision of the Bank which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit and I heard counsel appearing for the Bank. At the request of the petitioner, the issue was referred to the Labour Court, Kozhikode, and the Labour Court vide Ext.P4 award confirmed the decision of the Bank which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit and I heard counsel appearing for the Bank. The specific case of the Bank is that Head Guard is selected based on seniority at the respective Centre and inter se seniority of all the guards in the service of the Bank will not be counted for the purpose of selection of Head Guard in each Centre. Apart from certain allowances, the Head Guard is not entitled to any other benefits. According to counsel for the Bank the Labour Court has followed the terms of settlement between the employees’ Union and the Bank and therefore there is no scope for interference with Ext.P4 award. Even though I am in agreement with the contention of counsel for the Bank that the terms of settlement between the employees’ Union and the Bank cannot be contested by the Union before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court is bound to implement settlement, I am unable to uphold the appointment of second respondent in preference to the petitioner’s candidate in the given case. This is because the Branch at Civil Station, Kannur, did not have regular security guards and for the first time the security guards’ unit was established vide Ex.P1 transfer order where under four persons were transferred and posted as security guards in that Branch. It so happened that the person who was serving nearer to the Branch, namely, second respondent, could get relieved first and he joined the Branch earlier than the other security guards. However, others who were transferred and posted under the very same order, namely, Ext.P1 got relieved later probably after substitutes from out stations joined in their place and therefore they joined on later dates. The question therefore to be considered is whether the person who joined the Branch first under the common transfer order should be given seniority over others who are admittedly senior to him merely because the other persons could join the Branch on later dates by no fault of their. The specific case of the petitioner is that Mr. The question therefore to be considered is whether the person who joined the Branch first under the common transfer order should be given seniority over others who are admittedly senior to him merely because the other persons could join the Branch on later dates by no fault of their. The specific case of the petitioner is that Mr. M.C. Chandran Nambiar, who is senior to the second respondent joined the Branch on transfer from a far away place where from he was relieved after substitute joined and by the time he joined, second respondent who came from a nearer station had joined. Therefore according to the petitioner, the selection of Head Guard should have been made by taking into account the relative seniority of all the guards who joined simultaneously under common transfer order, namely, Ext.P1. In fact the Branch Manager initially applied this norm and that is how the petitioners candidate got selected as Head Guard first and not the second respondent. The question of centre-wise seniority of security guards based on date of joining the centre arise only when guards join in an easting unit and not when a new security guards’ unit is set up in a Branch for the first time. In other words, those coming on transfer later to an existing unit as security guards will be junior to those who are already in service as security guards in that Centre. However, when a new security guards’ unit is set up by simultaneous transfer of guards from several units the relative seniority of security guards should not be reckoned with reference to the date of joining the Centre but with reference to their inter-se seniority in service. If this principle is not followed, unfair situation worse than this can arise. For example, if Heard guard and a few guards under him in another Centre and one guard takes first available train and Head guard misses it and goes by second train to reach and join the centre after the guard who went by first train joined, then, he will have to work under his guard who joined a few hours earlier. Seniority according to the Bank in this case will be virtually a prize for the success in the race to the Bank by several posted simultaneously. I do not think this consequence is the sprit of settlement between the Union and the Bank. Seniority according to the Bank in this case will be virtually a prize for the success in the race to the Bank by several posted simultaneously. I do not think this consequence is the sprit of settlement between the Union and the Bank. Admittedly, all the security guards at the Civil Station Branch at Kannur were appointed vide Ext.P1 common order dated 1-9-1993. Delayed joining of one or more transferred employee as security guard after they were relied after their substitutes took over is not within the control of the concerned employee. In other words, relative advantage of somebody getting relieved earlier should not give him a position above other is a case where all are posted together. In this particular case, admittedly the second respondent was junior to the petitioner’s candidate by three years and second respondent is appointed as Head Security Guard by the Branch Manager only because he joined a few days earlier than the petitioner’s candidate, though both were transferred under common transfer order, namely Ext.P1. No specific clause in the settlement between the employees’ Union and the SBT pertaining to appointment of Head Security guard in the case of newly established security guards’ unit is brought to my notice. Therefore it has to be done in a fair and reasonable manner. Since admittedly the principle followed is seniority, the senior most among security guards who were simultaneously transferred and appointed while establishing a new unit should be appointed as Head Security Guard. Following this principle, I hold that the selection of second respondent in preference to Mr. M.C. Chandran Nambiar by the Branch Manager on the ground that the second respondent joined a few days earlier than the petitioner’s candidate, though both along with others were posted under Ext.P1 common transfer order, is not in accordance with any terms of settlement between the employees’ Union and the Bank. The decision is illegal and arbitrary and I find the Labour Court went wrong in upholding it. In the circumstances, O.P. is allowed quashing Ext.P4 award and the order of the Bank appointing second respondent as Head Security Guard. The Branch Manager of the Bank is directed to appoint Mr. M.C. Chandran Nambiar in the place of second respondent as Head Security Guard within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment if he is in service. The Branch Manager of the Bank is directed to appoint Mr. M.C. Chandran Nambiar in the place of second respondent as Head Security Guard within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment if he is in service. However, if he is retired he will be given financial benefits in the form of arrears of allowances and pensionary benefits by treating him as Head Security Guard from the date he joined the Branch at Kannur. Since there was no stay against the appointment and continuance of second respondent as Head Guard, benefits given to him except future pensionary benefits should not be withdrawn.