- (1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of order Annexure P.8 of the General Manager, Union Bank of India cancelling offer of his appointment as Probation Officer in terms of award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh due to his failure to join the post on or before 17th November, 1986 on the ground of arbitrariness and against rules and regulations governing his service conditions.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier since the last more than 15 years i.e. since 1976 under the respondent-Bank. The Bank invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Probation Officer vide advertisement/publication in the Indian Express, New Delhi Edition dated 10th March, 1976. At the relevant time there existed promotion agreement between the respondent-Bank and its employees represented by All India Union Bank Employees Federation signed on 22nd October, 1975 in terms of which the bank has codified the practice, procedure and understanding regarding appointments to certain posts carrying higher status in the same cadre and promotion from subordinate cadre to clerical cadre or from clerical cadre to officer cadre. Chapter IV of this agreement contains the policy of promotion and direct recruitment. Thereafter on 7th September, 1976 the respondent-Bank in terms of the promotion agreement and with reference to the above referred advertisement dated 10th March, 1976 for recruitment of the Probation Officer issued Staff Circular. The relevant portion of the staff circular reads as under:- "As per clause 4.2(c) of our Promotion Agreement 25% of the estimated total number of vacancies of Officer Grade II cadre will have to be filled in accordance with the provisions of Banking Service Commission Act, 1975. Till the time the Act comes into force the aforesaid 25% of the estimated total number of vacancies in Officer Grade II Cadre will be filled up by direct recruitment from outsider. The management wishes to clarify that even insiders can appear for the test for this 25% of vacancies. This is apart from 50% by way of promotion as per clause 4.2(a) of our Promotion Agreement and 25% of appointment as per Clause 4.2(b) of our Promotion Agreement. The insiders who conform to the norms as applicable to outsiders should forward their applications to Recruitment Cell through the Regional Manager of the respective Region. No weightage will be given for the banking experience."
(3.) The petitioner applied for the post of Probation Officer and was placed at serial No.41 in the merit list. The validity period of this merit list was extended upto 29.3.1980 by the respondent-Bank vide its staff circular No.2134 (Annexure P.3) addressed to all its branches. The petitioner thus contends that vacancies to be filled in accordance with the Promotion Agreement from amongst the employees who were eligible to compete for direct recruitment quota was 25% of 386 i.e. 96, therefore, he was entitled to be promoted as Probation Officer having secured position at serial No.41 on the merit list. The management of the respondent-Bank, however, did not promote the petitioner and they successfully raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal gave the award dated 7th April, 1986 Annexure P.4 in favour of the petitioner and directed the management to offer the petitioner the next available vacancy in the cadre of Officer Grade II. After award of the Tribunal, the responde It-Bank vide its letter dated 8.10.1986 offered the appointment as Probation Officer to the petitioner with the stipulation that he should resign from the bank before accepting this offer and his basic salary was fixed at Rs.1175/-, which was less by Rs.175/- than the salary drawn by the petitioner in the year 1986. The petitioner was shocked at this offer as there was no Rules and regulations to resign from the first post while accepting the promotion post by direct recruitment at the relevant time. The petitioner made various representations direct to the Bank as also through the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Central, Chandigarh, pointing out the harassment meted out to him, but of no avail. The matter was again referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh on 23rd September, 1989 for clarification/modification of the terms next available vacancy dated 7th April, 1986 figuring in the award. The Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 4th March, 1988 (Annexure P.7) declined the reference holding that it has no power of review. The petitioner again approached the bank directly as well as through the Asstt. Labour Commissioner for implementation of the award but the bank persisted in its unjust and unfair attitude and vide order Annexure P.8 it withdrew the offer already made vide Annexure P5. As the respondent-Bank was not implementing the award of the Tribunal, the petitioner again approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide letter dated 11.10.1989 (Annexure P.9). The Assistant Labour Commissioner through letter dated 21.10.1988 called the Regional Manager of the Bank for implementing the award but nothing fruitful came out of his efforts. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner then requested the Ministry of Labour to launch prosecution against the Bank for harassing the petitioner and refusing to implement the award. The petitioner inter alia challenged the said office order Annexure P.8 on the following grounds: (a) That the action of the respondent-Bank in asking the petitioner to first resign and then join as Probationary Officer is discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (b) That the action of the respondeat of withdrawing the offer made to the petitioner by letter Annexure P.8 is again without authority and discriminatory. (c) That the respondent-Bank is bound to implement the award of the Central Tribunal. The Bank being a State cannot be unfair and unjust to its employees. (d) That the award did not envisage that the petitioner should resign first before accepting the offer. The demand of resignation is, therefore, contradictory to the award and thus is unjust and invalid. (e) That the non-appointment of the petitioner as a Probationary Officer in the year 1978 and as having been side track from the merit list is without any basis criteria or qualification or logics. This denial of appointment is against the Agreement enforced between the management of the respondent-Bank and its employees. (f) That the award, Annexure P.4, in so far as it directs that the petitioner be offered appointment against the next available vacancy in the Cadre of Officer II is unjust. The petitioner had been wrongfully denied the appointment. The stand of the petitioner has been found as correct by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner was entitled to be appointed with effect from the date other candidates on the same merit list were appointed. (g) That at any rate there were vacancies in existence in 1978 which had not been filled even till the date of making of the award, Annexure P.4. The petitioner was entitled to be appointed against one of the existing vacancies.;