S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This petition is filed by the Management challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 10.4.1985, Annexure P/3, vide which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to take appropriate steps for providing employment to the respondents.
2. The contention of the respondents was that they had temporarily served the petitioner-bank in the sub-ordinate staff and after their disengagement, the petitioner recruited a number of freshers over-looking their claims for re- employment. They, therefore, raised a demand which was referred to the Labour Court.
3. The petitioner had pleaded before the Labour Court that out of 12 persons, who were sponsored by the Union, seven had worked for short term duration and five of them had never worked with it. Even regarding the seven employees, it is contended that they could not invoke the provision of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] because they had not served on permanent cadre ant! they had also not worked for 240 days. It was also contended that there was a Bipartite Settlement to regularise the services of temporary staff, who had worked for 240 days or more but none of the persons sponsored attained the qualification. It is also contended that respondent No. 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13 had applied for being absorbed for regular cadre but since they did not fulfil the minimum qualification of 240 days, their cases were rejected. It was also contended that the respondent had served the Bank many years ago and it was too late in the day for them to invoke the provisions of Section 25H of the Act for seeking employment At the same time, it was admitted that the bank had made recruitment in the subordinate staff obviously after the disengagement of the respondents but justification was projected on' the plea that it was done through approved sources like Employment Exchange etc.
4. The Labour Court found that the respondents had served some of the branches of the petitioner-bank for certain durations. It has also held that it stood proved that respondent No. 11 had served the petitioner at Ludhiana branch for 10 days in May and June, 1973 whereas respondent No. 4 had served the petitioner in their Miller Ganj branch for 27 days. It has also been observed by the Labour Court that they faced their cross-examination in the acid test but their deposition could not be shaken. It is also discussed by the Labour Court that the employee seeking re-employment is not required to have minimum qualification of one year service, as was argued before the Labour Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact that respondents had served is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the respondent had not completed 240 days, it is also not in dispute that regular appointments were made by the petitioner. It is contended that employment of the temporary/casual employees came to an end after the permanent incumbents reported for duty. Section 25H of the Act is as under :-
'25-H Re-employment of retrenched workmen -
Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he snail, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenchedworkmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.'
6. The following of Section 25H can be said to be proper in case where the appointments, as of the respondents, are again made. However, when the regular incumbents have come in, it is not proper for the employer to expect the temporary employees to be given preferential treatment in the regular employment. In case of regular employment, if the temporary employees stand selected, they can be taken. However, the employer cannot be asked to take temporary persons as regular employees by giving them preferential treatment. The award of the Labour Court, therefore, cannot be upheld.
This writ petition deserves to be allowed. It hereby allowed and the award of the Labour Court is quashed.
7. Petition allowed.