JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. Interference declined by the learned single Judge repelling the challenge raised against the common award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'] granting relief to the workmen represented by the Union is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals preferred by the management/employer Bank. 2. The first respondent workers in the appeals were serving in two different branches of the appellant Bank [Kadavanthara and Valappad respectively] as temporary part time employees' from 1992/1995 onwards, for different duration. Despite the long spell of engagement as above, no steps were taken by the employer Bank to have their service regularized; virtually without any regard to the guidelines formulated by the Bank regarding recruitment. As per the recruitment norms, in the case of 'temporary part time employees' [particularly clause (e) of Ext. P7 recruitment rules], it was not necessary for the Bank to report vacancies to the employment exchange and discretion was vested with the Deputy General Manager to appoint such persons having long service against regular vacancies. The said workers by name D.S. Mohini and K.G. Sulochana were denied the benefit and the Bank was allegedly adopting pick and choose policy and has been giving appointment on regular basis to other similarly situated part time workers [working in 4 different branches namely - Kodungallur, Kunnamkulam, Thrissur and Ollur], which was cited as an instance of arbitrariness and discrimination. Met with the situation, the issue was taken up by the Trade Union representing the workmen and ultimately, the matter was got referred for adjudication before the Tribunal by the appropriate Government. 3. The issue referred for adjudication was; (i). “whether the demand of Canara Bank employees' union before the management of Canara Bank to absorb Smt. K. G. Sulochana, a 'temporary' part-time employee in the regular vacancy of part time employee is proper and justified” ? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to ? (ii). Whether the demand of the Canara Bank Employees' Union before the Management of Canara Bank to absorb Smt. Mohini D.S., Temporary Part- time employee in the regular vacancy of part-time employee is proper and justified ? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to” ?. If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to ? (ii). Whether the demand of the Canara Bank Employees' Union before the Management of Canara Bank to absorb Smt. Mohini D.S., Temporary Part- time employee in the regular vacancy of part-time employee is proper and justified ? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to” ?. For convenience of reference, the parties and proceedings are referred to as given in W.A. No. 273 of 2018 [arising from W.P.(C) No.4823 of 2006 filed by Smt. D. S. Mohini]. 4. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the Union filed Ext. P1 claim statement pointing out that the workman was having continuous service as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act; that the filling upto the regular post by another person was quite illegal and against natural justice; that the action of the employer bank in denying the benefit to the worker engaged in leave vacancies for the past nine years and continuously for 28 months was an unfair labour practice. Ext. P2 is the reply statement filed by the employer Bank contending that the reference itself is bad; that the worker was not employed by the bank but arranged by person employed on leave as a substitute; that there was no right for any regularization; that the allegation of unfair labour practice was quite wrong and further that the regular vacancy was to be filled up by appointing candidates from employment exchanges. Ext. P3 is the rejoinder filed by the Union reiterating the contentions in the claim statement. Ext. P4 is the additional reply statement filed by the employer Bank. 5. As per the additional reply statement, it was pointed out that the earlier procedure of the Bank in filling up the regular vacancies of part time employees by considering the candidature of persons engaged in the leave vacancy, provided they have worked for sufficiently longer period, was put an end to and based on the joint conference held in June, 2015 between the Bank and employees Union, revised procedure for selection of part time employees was formulated by the Bank; by virtue of which, the vacancies had to be notified to the employment exchange. It was also pointed out that the various instances of regular appointment cited by the Union were prior to the formation of the revised guidelines. 6. It was also pointed out that the various instances of regular appointment cited by the Union were prior to the formation of the revised guidelines. 6. Evidence was adduced by both the sides; oral and documentary. Various other documents such as Daily Wages Register, Bonus Paid Register, Documents pertaining to regularization of 'PTEs' in different branches of the Bank were marked as Court Exhibits. The matter was dealt with elaborately by the Tribunal; particularly with reference to the various documents produced and also the oral depositions. With reference to the pleadings raised by both the sides, thefollowing issues were raised by the Tribunal, as given in paragraph 10 of Ext. P5 Award. “10. In the light of the above contentions, the following common points arise for consideration :- (i) Is the reference maintainable ? (ii) What, if any, is the right that temporary PTEs have acquired during their service in the bank ? (iii) Are they entitled to be regularized ? (iv) Reliefs & Costs.” 7. In relation to point No. (i), the Tribunal held that the reference was legal, proper and valid. With reference to point Nos. (ii) and (iii), after detailed discussion, it has been held that both the workers had worked for more than 240 days in an year; hence to the effect that they were having 'continuous service' as defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The applicability of Section 25F of theI.D. Act under such circumstances was considered and discussed with reference to the law declared by the Apex Court in Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, U.P.S.E.B., Bareilly Vs. Hydor Electric Employees Union [ (1999) 1 SCC 253 ], Bhagvati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation [ AIR 1990 SC 371 ], Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar (2001) 3 SCC 574 and a Division Bench of this Court in Director, Tourism Department, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Kollam [ 2005 (1) KLT 320 ] [sought to be relied on from the part of the workers/Union]. The precedents cited from the part of the employer Bank; particularly in Executive Engineer ZP Engineering Division Vs. Digambara Rao [ AIR 2004 SC 4839 ]; A. Umarami Vs. Registrar Co-operative Societies [ (2004) 7 SCC 112 ] and Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. The precedents cited from the part of the employer Bank; particularly in Executive Engineer ZP Engineering Division Vs. Digambara Rao [ AIR 2004 SC 4839 ]; A. Umarami Vs. Registrar Co-operative Societies [ (2004) 7 SCC 112 ] and Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration [1992 II-LLJ 452] to contend that regularization is not automatic and that completion of 240 days in the preceding 12 months will not confer any vested right for regularization were also adverted to. After detailed deliberation, the Tribunal held that the decisions cited by the employer Bank were not having any application to the case in hand, more so, when the engagement of the workmen herein was not for a project work and that the service of the workmen could not have been dispensed with, except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act; the mandate of Section 25F having admittedly been not satisfied by the employer Bank. It was in the said circumstance, that the Tribunal proceeded further to consider the next question as to whether they have got any right to be absorbed in the permanent vacancies of part time sweeper, more so when the only objection for the Bank was that they were 'over aged'. 8. It will be worthwhile to note the discussions as contained in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of Ext. P5 Award, which are reproduced below for convenience of reference : “17. The next question is whether they have a right to be absorbed in the permanent vacancies of part-time sweeper. It is not in dispute that permanent vacancies arose both in Valapad and Kadvanthara branches of Canara Bank from 2002 November and 2001 November respectively. According to the management, though permanent vacancies arose because of promotion of a permanent employee from Valapad branch and transfer of another employee from Kadavanthrra branch, Smt. Sulochana and Smt. Mohini were not qualified to be considered to the permanent post of part-time sweepers. The bank has procedural norms for selecting daily wage workers as well as regular employees. There are three grades PTEs, i.e. 1/3rd scale, 1/2 scale and 3/4 scale. Exits. M2 & M4 are recruitment norms for PTEs published on 23.12.1993 by Canara Bank. Ext. Mi(a) dt. 5.10.2000 is a circular containing revised recruitment norms of part-time employees. The bank has procedural norms for selecting daily wage workers as well as regular employees. There are three grades PTEs, i.e. 1/3rd scale, 1/2 scale and 3/4 scale. Exits. M2 & M4 are recruitment norms for PTEs published on 23.12.1993 by Canara Bank. Ext. Mi(a) dt. 5.10.2000 is a circular containing revised recruitment norms of part-time employees. It may be noted that by some oversight the bank has produced 1st page of recruitment norms separately (Ext. M4 2nd page) This might have happened while taking photostat copies. The same covering letter is the 1st page of Exts. M2 & M4. But, actually 2nd page of Ext. M4 is the 1st page of recruitment norms 1993. Ext. M2 contains Recruitment Norms from 2nd page onwards only. As per Exts. M2 & M4, the age limit for temporary PTE is between 18-22 years and for regular PTE 18-26 years. The maximum educational qualification for regular PTE is 5th Standard. Ext. Ml(a) refers mainly to the procedure for promotion of PTE from 1/3rd scale to 1/2 scale and 1/2 scale to 3/4th scale. The consequential vacancy that arises in the lowest scale, i.e. 1/3rd scale is to be filled up by regular recruitment process which is provided in Exts. M2 & M4. But according to the management as per Exts. M2 & M4 Smt. Sulochana and Smt. Mohini are not eligible because of age bar. But, the learned counsel for the union points out that bank has seldom followed Exts. M2 and M4 norms and there are several instances of absorption of temporary PTEs in permanent posts. It is only in the case of Smt. Sulochana and Smt. Mohini that the bank deviated from the usual practice denying them regularization. It is an unfair labour practice as both of them were serving the bank for a long time as PTEs. To support the contention he has drawn the attention of the Court to Exhibits X1 to X8 documents. 18. Ext. X1 is photostat copy of Daily Wage Register of PTEs of Kodungallur branch. There one -Smt. Savitri was officiating as PTE in the leave vacancy for some time. When permanent vacancy arose she was absorbed as part-time sweeper. Ext. X2 is the file relating to her absorption. Ext.X2 file shows that the date of birth of Smt. Savitri is 15.11.1961. She was appointed in the permanent post on 18.2.2003 (Ext.X2). There one -Smt. Savitri was officiating as PTE in the leave vacancy for some time. When permanent vacancy arose she was absorbed as part-time sweeper. Ext. X2 is the file relating to her absorption. Ext.X2 file shows that the date of birth of Smt. Savitri is 15.11.1961. She was appointed in the permanent post on 18.2.2003 (Ext.X2). At that time she was aged 42 years. But, as per Exts. M2 & M4 norms, the age limit is 26. Ext.X3 is Daily Wage Register of PTEs of Kunnamkulam branch and Ext. X4 is the file concerning the appointment of Smt. C.P. Rosa (alias Rosily) as PTE Kunnamkulam branch in the permanent post. The appointment was on 31.7.2000. She was officiating in the leave vacancy from 1995 onwards. Details of age and qualifications are not produced by the bank along with the file Ext. X4. So, there is no way to know whether she was over-aged or not Ext. X5 is Daily Wage Register of PTEs of Thrissur branch and Ext. X6 is the file relating to regularization of PTE who was officiating in the leave vacancy of PTE in Thrissur branch. Smt, Kochutresia (alias Teresa) was working since 1996 in Thrissur branch in the leave vacancy. As per order dated 18.2.2003 Smt. Kochutresia was absorbed in the permanent vacancy. Her date of firth is 15.1.1961. Thus at the time of appointment in the permanent vacancy she was aged, 42. Ext. X7 and Ext. X8 are similar documents relating to 011ur branch. In that case, Ms. C. A. Liza, who was officiating in leave vacancy since 1998, was absorbed in the permanent vacancy of part-time sweeper as per order dated 17.6.2004. Her date of birth is 4.4.1970. Therefore, at the time of appointment she was aged 34. In all these cases the bank did not follow the recruitment norms. But the reply of the management is that all these vacancies arose prior to Ext. M1(a) circular dated 5.10.2009 and hence bank was not required to follow Ext. M1(a) but only Exts. M2 & Ext. M4. As per Ext. M1(a) the revised norms are applicable only to those vacancies which arose on or after 1.10.2000. Assuming that the vacancies at Kodungallur, Kunnamkulam, Thrissur and Ollur arose prior to 1.10.2000 (Ext. M1(a) still the temporary PTEs were not absorbed till very late in 2003 04. M1(a) but only Exts. M2 & Ext. M4. As per Ext. M1(a) the revised norms are applicable only to those vacancies which arose on or after 1.10.2000. Assuming that the vacancies at Kodungallur, Kunnamkulam, Thrissur and Ollur arose prior to 1.10.2000 (Ext. M1(a) still the temporary PTEs were not absorbed till very late in 2003 04. Going by the case of bank if 1993 norms alone were applicable to the above PTEs still they were over-aged at the time of regularization. In the case of Smt. Kochutresia, a permanent vacancy had not arisen in the year 2000 but only subsequently as seen from Ext. X5. If so, the bank had to follow Ext.M1(a) for appointment. Ext. M1(a) itself shows that the procedure in vogue for filling up the regular vacancy of PTEs is by absorption of candidates officiating in leave vacancies in the same branch or by recruitment from employment exchanges. Page 2 of Ext. M1(a) - clause (c) says that when there is promotion of a PTE in the lowest scale the consequential vacancy is to be filled up by regular recruitment process. The regular recruitment process is provided in Exts. M2 & M4. But, bank did not follow it in the case of Smt. Kochuthresia. 19. From Ext. M1 (a) it is very clear from page 2, Clause 'c' that in cases when permanent vacancy arises in the last scale of PTE, i.e. 1/3rd scale, it has to be filled up by the regular recruitment process. M1 (a) is silent about the regular recruitment process. It is provided in Ext. M2 & Ext. M4. As per Exts. M2 & M4 the regular recruitment process of PTE vacancies (clause 'c' of Ext. M2) is by calling for candidates from Employment Exchange. It is also provided in the same clause that if any person has been working in leave vacancies he/she also may be considered, for absorption if found suitable and if he/she has been working in leave vacancies for a long period. In such cases the Dy. General Manager has the authority not to call for candidates from Employment Exchange. Ext. M1(a) is a circular meant for giving guidelines for the procedure of promoting regular PTEs in the last scale (1/3rd) to higher scales of PTEs [½ & 3/4th ). Ext. M1(a) does not contain procedure for regular recruitment. In such cases the Dy. General Manager has the authority not to call for candidates from Employment Exchange. Ext. M1(a) is a circular meant for giving guidelines for the procedure of promoting regular PTEs in the last scale (1/3rd) to higher scales of PTEs [½ & 3/4th ). Ext. M1(a) does not contain procedure for regular recruitment. In any case, for appointing temporary PTEs as well as regular PTEs there were norms already set by the bank in 1993 and prior. Even for employing temporary PTEs (casual workers), the bank had to follow Exts. M2 & M4 norms which prescribe age limit and educational qualification. It is to be remembered that when Smt. Sulochana and Smt. Mohini were allowed to work in the permanent PTE vacancies from 2002 November and 2001 November respectively, the bank had to follow the norms in Exts. M2 & M4. If they had followed strictly the norms, there was no chance for allowing these two PTEs to continue in service. The same was the case of the person absorbed in Kondungallur, Kunnamkulam, Thrissur and Ollur banches. Having set a practice of absorption of temporary PTEs officiating on leave vacancies for long period, and going by the norms in Ext. M4 as well as Ext. M1 (a) the candidature of offiating PTEs in the leave vacancies has to be considered in preference to candidates from employment exchange. “6. The Tribunal proceeded further to hold that the workmen having served with the Bank as 'temporary part time employees' in the leave vacancies for quite long and having continuous officiating service for nearly 2/3 years in the regular vacancies, it was meaningless to say that the said part time employees did not confirm to the recruitment norms due to age bar. If it were so, when permanent vacancies arose, they could not have officiated because they were overaged and the Bank waited 2 -3 years to appoint somebody else in the permanent vacancies at Kadavanthara and Valappad branches. The Tribunal also made a reference to the evidence adduced by the management witness as MW1, that going by the relevant Rules/Norms, the Deputy General Manager was having authority to relax the age criterion and that the Bank has no case that the workers by name Mohini and Sulochana had not rendered 'satisfactory service' in the post or that their conduct was tainted in any manner. It was also observed that, though the said persons were daily rated workers, they were working for long periods against permanent vacancies and there were no adverse remarks against them. The management had no case that the above part time employees were physically or mentally unfit or that their conduct was not satisfactory. It was in the said circumstances, that an observation was made by the Tribunal that the management was trying to avoid regular appointment of the part-time temporary employees on lame excuses and that it amounted to an 'unfair labour practice' which cannot be countenanced with, and hence they had to be absorbed in regular posts. Similarly, the contention of the employer Bank that there were surplus hands, was also turned down, referring to the specific facts pleaded and brought in evidence, as discernible form paragraph 21 of Ext. P5 and elsewhere in Ext. P5 Award. The Tribunal held that the workers by name Mohini and Sulochana were eligible to be absorbed against permanent vacancies which arose in the year 2001 and 2002 respectively in the Kadavanthara and Valappad branches of the Bank. However, observing that since the vacancies were pending for over three years, the employer Bank was spared from paying any back wages. The operative portion in Ext. P5 Award as contained in paragraph 23 reads as follows : “23. In the result, an award is passed allowing the claim of Smt. K. G. Sulochana and Smt. D. S. Mohini for absorption in the permanent vacancies of PTEs in Valapad and Kadavanthra branches respectively. The bank will issue appointment order within six weeks from the date of publication of the award u/s 17 of ID Act, failing which the PTEs concerned will be entitled to get salary at 1/3rd scale and other benefits from the date of expiry of six weeks aforesaid. Parties will suffer their respective cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the official Gazette.” 10. Mr. E. K. Nandakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant Bank submits that the relief granted by the Tribunal is mainly based on a wrong inference with regard to the 'unfair labour practice' stated as followed by the employer Bank. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the official Gazette.” 10. Mr. E. K. Nandakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant Bank submits that the relief granted by the Tribunal is mainly based on a wrong inference with regard to the 'unfair labour practice' stated as followed by the employer Bank. The learned counsel submits that the endeavour of the Bank was only to fill up the regular vacancies as per Rules/Norms then in existence, by reporting vacancies to the employment exchange and that non-granting of regularization to the workers can never be termed as an instance of 'unfair labour practice'. It is also pointed out, whether there was an instance of 'unfair labour practice' or not was never an issue referred to the Tribunal and as such, the Tribunal traversed beyond the terms of reference, which is forbidden in law. 11. Smt. Surya Binoy, the learned counsel for the first respondent/workman in both the appeals submits that the aforesaid plea was never raised by the employer Bank at any point of time earlier. It is her submissions that, how the conduct of the employer Bank amounted to 'unfair labour practice' stands specifically mentioned in paragraph 9 of Ext. P1 claim settlement. It has not been specifically rebutted by the Bank but for a vague denial in paragraph 13 of Ext. P2 Reply statement. The said paragraphs are extracted below for convenience of reference : “Paragraph 9 of Ext. P1 9. The action of the respondent in denying the eligibility of the person engaged in leave vacancies for the past 9 years and continuously for 28 months is an unfair labour practice and any amount of denial cannot cover up the failure to follow the law of the land. Paragraph 13 of Ext. P2 13. The averments in para 9 are denied. The question of eligibility of a candidate arise only when there is vacancy. In the instant case the post of the transferred lower scale wage employee was filled by another existing lower scale wage employee of the bank, hence the contention of the petitioners that there has been unfair labour practice is not sustainable.” 12. The question of eligibility of a candidate arise only when there is vacancy. In the instant case the post of the transferred lower scale wage employee was filled by another existing lower scale wage employee of the bank, hence the contention of the petitioners that there has been unfair labour practice is not sustainable.” 12. The learned counsel also refers to 'clause (e)' under the head “Method of Appointment” of Ext.P7 extract of the recruitment norms, which is reproduced below for easy reference : “e. It is not necessary to approach Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates to fill up PTE vacancies at rural/semi-urban branches. In future while filling regular vacancies at places where Circle Office/Divisional Office is situated vacancies may be notified to the District Employment Exchange and candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange may only be considered. However, if any person has been working in leave vacancies and deserves to be considered for absorption provided he/she has worked in leave vacancies for long period and provided he/she is found suitable for absorption. In such cases the Deputy General Manager can waive notifying the vacancy to the Employment Exchange.” 13. It was with reference to the years long service rendered by the temporary part time workers from 1992/1995 onwards, by way of different spells and continuously for more than 2/3 years and further, in view of the enabling provision to absorb them in regular part time vacancies and above all in view of the power conferred upon the Deputy General Manager to relax the age bar, that the Tribunal granted the relief holding that the course followed by the employer Bank was discriminatory, amounting to unfair trade practice; in the light of the specific pleadings raised and evidence adduced in this regard. 14. After hearing both the sides, this Court is of the view that the issue referred for adjudication before the Tribunal [as extracted already] was not whether there was any 'unfair labour practice' or not;, but with regard to the right to get regular appointment. The fact remains that, it was with reference to the years long service rendered by them and non-granting of relief [now sought to be justified with reference to the age bar]; while the employer Bank was extending such benefits to other similarly situated persons, despite their higher age factor. The fact remains that, it was with reference to the years long service rendered by them and non-granting of relief [now sought to be justified with reference to the age bar]; while the employer Bank was extending such benefits to other similarly situated persons, despite their higher age factor. It was considering the totality of the facts and circumstances brought in evidence, that the Tribunal deprecated the course pursued by the employer Bank, holding that the non-granting of the relief by the Management Bank will amount to 'unfair labour practice'. In other words, inference of 'unfair labour practice' drawn by the Tribunal is with reference to the factual sequence and it can be said that it is very much incidental to the main issue referred for adjudication before the Tribunal. This being the position, the law declared by the Apex Court, sought to be relied on by the appellant Bank, in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of Indian (P) Ltd. Vs. Workmen employed, represented by Firestone Tyre Employees' Union [(1981) 3 SCC 459 -(paragraphs 8 and 9)] is not applicable. The inference of 'unfair labour practice' made by the Tribunal will stand confined to the limited extent and scope for moulding the relief and it is not to cast any stigma upon the appellant Bank as to its course or conduct in general. We hold it accordingly. 15. The question considered by the learned single Judge was whether any interference was necessary with the finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal in the Award. It is settled law that High Court is not a Court of Appeal in respect of the Awards passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunals. The learned single Judge noted [as noted by us] that there was meticulous analysis of the facts and figures by the Tribunal, in the light of the pleadings raised and evidence adduced, which led to Ext. P5 Award. The Tribunal has also spared appellant Bank from payment of any backwages. The learned single Judge noted [as noted by us] that there was meticulous analysis of the facts and figures by the Tribunal, in the light of the pleadings raised and evidence adduced, which led to Ext. P5 Award. The Tribunal has also spared appellant Bank from payment of any backwages. The finding was that the workers are entitled to be absorbed against the permanent vacancies which arose in the year 2001 and 2002; and that the relief would stand moulded in directing to issue appointment orders within six weeks of publication of the Award under Section 17 of the I.D. Act; holding that the failure in this regard would entitle the part time employees to get salary @ 1/3rd scale and other benefits from the date of expiry of six months. The observation made by the learned single Judge that it is beyond the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the facts and evidence to overturn the findings, in turn, declining interference, is perfectly within the four wall of law and is not assailable under any circumstances. Appeals fail and they are dismissed accordingly.