State Bank of India v. Shyam Sundar Adhikari — 2023 DIGILAW 302 (SC)

ORDER : Civil Appeal No.1591 /2023 [@ SLP(C) No. 17050/2017] 1.Leave granted. 2. The present dispute has a long history running into almost four decades. It arose from a claim of temporary employees who were stated to have put in an aggregate of 90 days or more of service in the appellant Bank as on 31.10.1984. 3. The claim is stated to have been resolved by a settlement dated 15.02.1985 arrived at between the Bank and the respondent-State Bank of India Employees Union (hereinafter ‘the Union’) stipulating that all such temporary employees “will be given a chance for consideration for permanent appointment”. This was stated to be an exercise to be done on a one time basis. 4. It is the say of the Union that this would imply that all such employees would have to be absorbed over a period of time, more so, as according to them, their services were obtained through the Employment Exchange and should not be alleged to be a back door entry. 5. On the other hand, it is the say of the Bank that there have to be a process for absorbing these employees which, in turn, was dependent on the number of vacancies available. Thus, as per the Bank, all eligible workmen were interviewed and vacancies were filled in but 69 of such workmen could not be absorbed, as they did not clear the interviews. We may notice that these were all employees in the Bank branches in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 6. The aforesaid gave rise to an industrial dispute and the matter is stated to have remained pending with the Industrial Tribunal for 21 years! The ultimate Award dated 01.08.2012 directed reinstatement in service of 55 out of the 69 workmen (14 workmen not found to be eligible) and that the absorption would be without back wages. For such of the persons who had crossed the age of superannuation, the Bank was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2 lakh each. 7. The aforesaid Award was assailed by the appellant Bank by filing a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which has resulted in the impugned order dated 04.04.2017. The High Court was of the view that the Award of the Tribunal was based on the appreciation of the factual scenario before it. 7. The aforesaid Award was assailed by the appellant Bank by filing a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which has resulted in the impugned order dated 04.04.2017. The High Court was of the view that the Award of the Tribunal was based on the appreciation of the factual scenario before it. Incidentally, the 14 people who were excluded are stated to be such who could not establish the claim of having worked for more than 90 days. The findings against the Bank are that the settlement was not adhered to as the expression “consideration” was sought to be given a particular meaning. This was in the context of submission of the Management that in view of the limited number of posts available, there had to be some methodology to carry out the recruitment. It appears that the Tribunal was not satisfied with the records produced by the Bank. 8. The aforesaid judgment was assailed before this Court by the Bank when leave was granted and a stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment was directed at the threshold itself while issuing notice. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. 10. We find it difficult to countenance that the settlement should be construed in a manner that expression “consideration” is rendered otiose as consideration in essence requires some process to be carried out. This was in the background of a scenario that there were limited number of vacancies. If every person had to be absorbed then it would have required that many posts to be created to absorb them or the process would have to be implemented over a period of time as and when vacancies arose. We do believe that the carrying out of the process itself cannot be held to be contrary to the settlement. 11. We are, however, also conscious of the time period which has elapsed and learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously endeavoured to persuade us that the supervening factors should result in this Court moulding the relief. We do believe that the carrying out of the process itself cannot be held to be contrary to the settlement. 11. We are, however, also conscious of the time period which has elapsed and learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously endeavoured to persuade us that the supervening factors should result in this Court moulding the relief. This is so in view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents where in para 23 it is categorically averred that there are only 10 workmen who have sought the benefit of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal as well as the High Court and thus, there are only 10 such workmen and not 55 workmen as was stated by the Bank. 12. In this behalf, learned counsel has endeavoured to persuade us that the alternative relief envisaged by the Tribunal itself of grant of Rs.2 lakh as compensation should be followed in the present case as that was in the case of such of people who had attained the age of superannuation. The passage of time has made the reinstatement relief infructuous as even amongst those 10 people, it is stated that 8 have crossed retirement age and two are on the verge of it. 13. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank has expressed some concerns for cascading effect in other matters which may be pending, if the alternative relief as envisaged by the Tribunal is followed in the present case as it would amount to give imprimatur to the Award of the Tribunal. Further, he submits that it is not as if the Bank has granted that compensation of Rs.2 lakh to anybody as they have been assailing the very principle of absorption in a manner envisaged by the respondents and have justified the process of selection through which the concerned people were absorbed. 14. Learned Additional Solicitor General is, however, not averse to the determination of any ad hoc amount which would be appropriate in the wisdom of this Court to be paid to a list of 10 persons in view of the whole issue pending and being at large for such a considerable period of time. 14. Learned Additional Solicitor General is, however, not averse to the determination of any ad hoc amount which would be appropriate in the wisdom of this Court to be paid to a list of 10 persons in view of the whole issue pending and being at large for such a considerable period of time. It is in the aforesaid context that we are inclined to follow that path, while not upholding the Award of the Tribunal or the judgment of the High Court, to fix a lumpsum amount of compensation to be paid to these 10 persons alone as that is what has been prayed by the respondents and that too also not to be treated as a precedent for any other cases which may be arising from similar scenario as that would have a larger ramification for the appellant Bank. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents endeavoured to persuade us to follow the course of action as this Court did in The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India v. Chinnaponnu & Anr.- Civil Appeal Nos.6883- 6884/2016 and other connected matters vide order dated 03.10.2019 appointing a Single Member Committee of a retired Judge which gave an Award dated 31.01.2020 determining the amount of Rs.50 thousand. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that that scenario was slightly different. 16. Since it has been agreed and left to this Court to fix the amount rather than have another round for determination of the amount, we do not have to embark on that path. We are thus, of the view that an amount of Rs.1.25 lakh as lumpsum compensation would meet the ends of justice and the said amount be paid as compensation to the 10 persons within a period of two months from today. We make it clear that we are doing so in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 17. We may note that the 10 respondents referred to aforesaid are in the context of the amended cause title which contains a list of 12 persons with respondent No.1 being the Employees Union. Respondent No.7 has passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on record. We do believe that the legal heirs should not be deprived and thus, enlarge the benefit even to the legal heirs of respondent No.7. Thus, there will be 11 lot of payments to be made. Respondent No.7 has passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on record. We do believe that the legal heirs should not be deprived and thus, enlarge the benefit even to the legal heirs of respondent No.7. Thus, there will be 11 lot of payments to be made. 18. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving parties to bear their own costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO.6882/2016 19. We have separately penned down an order in respect of similar persons who were initially employed as temporary messengers. However, the difference in the case of the respondent is the time period for which he worked. The respondent worked for a period of 911 days with breaks in service from 01.01.1996 to 13.09.2002. Thereafter he worked under interim directions of the Court but those ended in the year 2010. Thereafter, no work has been taken from the respondent. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that reinstatement would create its own problems but he is not averse if the respondent is suitably compensated not on figures applicable to the other case because in the present case, there has been prolonged service over a period of time. 21. We are inclined to accept that suggestion. 22. We are also conscious of the fact that for the period he worked, he has already been paid for. We thus, consider appropriate that a sum of Rs.5 lakh to be paid to the respondent within a period of two months from today as compensation in full and final satisfaction to all claims of the respondent arising from the impugned Award as against reinstatement and back wages etc. We do so in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 23. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.