JUDGMENT Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties at length. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of impugned award dated 22nd November, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. in Industrial dispute case No. 54 of 2000. In the matter of Raj Bahadur Yadav v. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal office, Varanasi. 3. The claim of respondent/workman is that he was a permanent employee of the petitioner w.e.f. 1st September, 1988 he was drawing salary of Rs. 750/- per month, at the time of his alleged verbal terminated from service by the bank from the fournoon of 11th August, 1999 the workman concerned raised aforesaid industrial dispute No. 54 of 2000 challenging his termination on the ground that it was illegal and without jurisdiction as the bank had not complied with the conditions precedent to retrenchment under Section-25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide notification No. L-12012/55/2000/IR (B-1) dated 27.6.2000 referred the follwing dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. 5. Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Varanasi in terminating the service of Raj Bahadur Yadav, former messenger, w.e.f. 11.8.99 is just and legal? If not, to what relief is the disputant entitled to? 6. The case of the workman before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was appointed as permanent messenger in the bank after interview and was posted its Sonbhadra branch where he worked up to 28.11.88, thereafter he worked at bank’s branch situated at ITI Complex, Naini, Allahabad from where his services has been dispensed with illegally and without complying with the provisions of Section-25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule-42 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947. The worker prayed for reinstatement of his service with full back wages and all consequential benefits. 7. The case of the petitioner bank before the High Court is that there was no relationship as master and servant between the workman concerned and petitioner, there are certain set of rules and procedure prescribed for recruitment of a permanent employee in the bank and for the engagement as an employee of a bank. 7. The case of the petitioner bank before the High Court is that there was no relationship as master and servant between the workman concerned and petitioner, there are certain set of rules and procedure prescribed for recruitment of a permanent employee in the bank and for the engagement as an employee of a bank. Vacancies are identified and advertised in the newspapers and the candidates faces written test and interview. After final selection only a successful candidate is appointed as an employee of the bank. It is also submitted that the respondent/workman was a private courier and was not appointed by the bank even as its permanent employee. He was rather engaged for 89 days at a time for a fixed period as a casual/temporary independent contractor accordingly to the terms contained in the bipartite settlements entered into with the management of the bank and the unions and that ancillary casual engagement of private courier and besides doing his other usual and routine vocations and economic activities etc. at other places unconnected with the bank he cannot be allowed to allege his status of being protected under Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The alleged petitioner has never been under the bank’s discipline and control including the time, hours and/or manner performance/non performance etc. nor were terms and conditions of service of the bank applicable to him. It is also pleaded that messengers namely S/Sri Kallu Singh, Kabir Das and Smt. Asha Devi were already working with the ITI Complex Branch of the bank during the period alleged claimant has raised his claim as such the claim is false baseless and liable to be dismissed. 8. It has also been pleaded that the alleged engagement during the period 1.9.88 to 28.11.88 i.e. only for 89 days came to an end by the expiry of time fixed for the said casual engagement as such it does not fall within the term retrenchment and otherwise also the same cannot be considered to be continuous service in terms of Section 25-B of the Act. Apart from it the petitioner has availed chance under the bipartite settlement entered into between the bank and reoognized union, he was interviewed and was placed at serial No. 202 in the panel to be utilized as and when vacancy arose within the period specified in the settiement. 9. Apart from it the petitioner has availed chance under the bipartite settlement entered into between the bank and reoognized union, he was interviewed and was placed at serial No. 202 in the panel to be utilized as and when vacancy arose within the period specified in the settiement. 9. Per contra the counsel for the respondent/workman is relied upon Section-9 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 which is as under : “No principal employer of an establishment, to which this Act applies, shall— (a) in the case of an establishment required to be registered under Section 7, but which has not been registered within the time fixed for the purpose under that section, (b) in the case of an establishment the registration in respect of which has been revoked under Section 8, employ contract labour in the establishment after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a) or after the revocation of registration referred to in clause (b), as the case may be.” 10. From the award of the Labour Court it appears that before the Labour Court the workman had claimed his appointment after interview. It is also an admitted fact on record that the workman has neither submitted any documents to establish that he was appointed against a permanent vacancy identified and published by the bank for permanent appointment nor has filed his appointment letter to prove his permanent appointment on the post of messenger in accordance with the rule of the bank as claimed by him in the written statement. It is also not denied by him that he was engaged from time to time as temporary employee under the contract, settlement and rules framed by the bank. Appointment on a permanent post in a bank is made in accordance with rules and procedure prescribed to be an employee of the bank a candidate has to undergo procedure in accordance with law. A person who is casual or temporary employee for providing certain services on personal contract basis as a daily wager or casual employee has no right or lien on any post in the bank. The Court C.G.I.T., Kanpur has noted that the petitioner was paid Rs. 750/- per month and was paid charges for carrying the Dak of the I.T.I., Naini, Allahabad to State Bank of India, main branch, Allahabad. 11. The Court C.G.I.T., Kanpur has noted that the petitioner was paid Rs. 750/- per month and was paid charges for carrying the Dak of the I.T.I., Naini, Allahabad to State Bank of India, main branch, Allahabad. 11. From a perusal of para-10 of the award it appears that Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has also noticed various representations of the petitioner rendering courier services on contractual basis and that Ext. M.1/1 to M1/4 and M.2/1 to M.2/20, M.3/1 to M.3/3 and M.4/4 to M.7 the attendance register and payment vouchers etc. showing that the workman had worked as messenger/independent contractor at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. 12. The Labour Court relying upon the payment vouchers from the month of December, 1997 to August, 1999 held that workman had been paid his wages month wise and that it stands established that the petitioner had worked continuously without any break for more than 240 days in each calendar year, as such the service rendered by him falls within the ambit of definition of continuous service under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 13. The Labour Court though has noted that the workman in his cross-examination has admitted that no appointment letter was given to him and that he has also admitted the fact that the period during which he worked with Naini branch of the bank has not been mentioned in the statement of his claim where the regular/permanent messenger appointed by the bank working in the branch were getting Rs. 3900/- per month. He was paid courier charges through the bills submitted by him original which was brought on the record of the Labour Court as Ext. M.1 to Ext. M.7. Yet the Labour Court has not given any reason to come to the conclusion as to why the services rendered by him were not contractual or that he was not an independent contractor. In fact the Labour Court has come to its conclusion that workman was an employee of the bank on presumption that the oral statement has no meaning unless in writing between the parties which according to the Labour Court in a settled principle of law. 14. In fact the Labour Court has come to its conclusion that workman was an employee of the bank on presumption that the oral statement has no meaning unless in writing between the parties which according to the Labour Court in a settled principle of law. 14. The conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court on basis of aforesaid presumption is apparently against the law as a legal contract between two parties having the element of legal offer and acceptance enforceable in law can also be oral. 15. In view of the admitted fact by the workman that no appointment letter was issued to him and the documents submitted by the bank i.e. payment vouchers and attendance register etc. clearly shows that workman was being paid as independent contractor for courier service rendered by him per month would not change the nature of the employment into permanent employee of the bank without following of procedure for recruitment under the relevant rules. Admittedly also no document has been filed by the workman to establish that any process for permanent selection on the post of messenger had been initiated by the bank in which he had participated he might have been interviewed for the purpose of scrutiny for selecting an independent contractor as courier for the bank but that would not make an independent contractor/courier a permanent employee appointed by the bank in accordance with recruitment rules. Appointment in a financial institution such as banks which are back bones of the country have to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed for appointment and any or every person who has rendered some service for the bank cannot be declared to be permanent dehors the rules, by any tribunal or Labour Court. There is a difference in law in appointment for service. Once it is an admitted fact that no selection process was intiated by the bank for recruitment on the post of messenger after identify vacancies and the workman was not given any appintment letter pursuant to any such recruitment/process as such any independent contract for service cannot be converted into a permanent employment by the Labour Court as it would amount to entry by back door by an award and as such the same is liable to be set-aside. 16. The impugned award appears to have been rendered without appreciating the character of the controversy. 16. The impugned award appears to have been rendered without appreciating the character of the controversy. The petitioner is a nationalised bank governed by rules of service therefore employee like the petitioner cannot employed without any appointment letter or discharged without termination letter. Since neither any appointment letter or any termination letter was brought on record by the respondent. It is apparent from the record that workman was neither appointed in the bank nor was subjected to any wages as provided in the rules merely because the workman was getting a fixed amount of Rs. 750/- per month as consideration for his services. Therefore the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that relationship of employer and employee exists between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 appears to be illegal, arbitrary and without any basis in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. There is also no whisper of any of the documents before the tribunal by the parties that remuneration was being made to the workman as “pay/salary” or “wages” therefore the interpretation of the tribunal of the records that workman being paid monthly salary/wages is an erroneous interpretation. On face of record the inference made by the tribunal appears to be against all cannons of the interpretation and the conclusion reached by it that “it is settled position of law that oral agreement has no meaning in the eye of law unless the same is incorporated in writing between the parties” cannot be sustained also for the reason that the legal position is that when an agreement is reduced to writing no oral evidence shall be adduced in modification of it or to supplement it. 18. The workman having failed to establish his claim that he was appointed as a permanent employee of the bank and support the finding of the Labour Court in this regard cannot be granted relief granted to him through the impugned award. 19. For all the reasons stated above the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. ————