ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner Bank and submits, pursuant to observations made in order dated 10th May, 2016 regarding Court requiring Bank to consider the concession made by the canteen workers in regard to direction in their favour in impugned order, his instructions are to press with his client's challenge against award published on 21st March, 2001. Main contention of the Bank is that the canteen workers are not employees of the Bank. They were not appointed by the Bank. On such being a fact there cannot be direction for regularization. Regularization, according to Mr. Majumder, is done by an employer in respect of an employee irregularly appointed whose appointment is approved or regularized. He reiterates, the canteen workers were never appointed by the bank, irregularly or otherwise.
(2.) Mr. Majumder relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen reported in (1996) 3 SCC 267 , to paragraph 25. He submits, Supreme Court in that judgment while setting aside the award given in favour of canteen workers had found that the canteens were run by Implementation Committee. The bank was making grant by way of subsidy of 95% of costs for payment of salary, provident fund contribution, gratuity, uniforms etc. besides providing fuel, water, fixtures, utensils, furniture, electricity, premises etc. free of charge. Only 3 out of 12 representatives in Implementation Committee (Canteen Committee) were from the bank. On very many circumstances regarding reference to Bank for the purpose of appointing workers, revised rates of eatables or wage revision and reimbursing incurred medical expenses, Tribunal had held that the bank exercised 'remote control' which is as effective as any. However, the fact remained that the Bank had only a limited role to play regarding the functioning of the Committee and does not have any control whatsoever on the employees engaged by the Committee so far as taking disciplinary action against any particular employee is concerned. It was brought out in evidence, in that case, the only role played by the Bank in running of canteens is nomination of three members to the Committee. Bank had no right to supervise or control the work done by the persons employed by the Committee and as such even, according to the Tribunal, Bank exercised only 'remote control'. Thus Supreme Court was of the view that the case before it did not come within the ratio laid down in M.M.R. Khan's case reported in (1990) Supp SCC 191 .
(3.) Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the canteen workers submits, there is nothing in the award that can be said to be perverse inviting interference by this Court. The evidence laid was considered along with the law and Tribunal came to a possible view. He submits, the Canteen Committee is made up of employees of the bank. Canteen activities take place in Bank premises with furniture and fixtures supplied by the bank. In addition, the Bank gives subsidy to the Canteen Committee for the purpose of providing canteen facilities to employees of the Bank. Mr. Ghosh points out from paragraph 11 of the award that in the case of this very same Bank in respect of its branches in Chennai, similar situation arose. Writ Court had interfered with the award. It appears the award was restored on appeal before Division Bench. A further appeal was preferred to Supreme Court which confirmed the award.;