S.S.SUDHALKAR, J. - (1.) This petition is filed by the Management challenging the award of the Labour Court dated April 10, 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 subordinate 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 provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] because they had not served on permanent cadre and they had also not worked for 240 days. It was also contended that theirs 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 respondents 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 respondents had served the Bank many many years ago and it was too late in the day for them to invoke the provisions of Section 25-H 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.;