ALLAHABAD BANKversusSHRI PREM SINGH

                          ALLAHABAD BANK                                       A
                                      v.
                          SHRI PREM SINGH

                          SEPTEMBER 9, 1996

                 [J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]                             B

      Labour Law:

      Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

       Contractual employment-Can a contractual employee seek employ-          c
ment as a matter of 1ight-lndustrial Dispute-Tribunal held that such
employees should be continued in se1vice-On appeal held no, since the
relationship between the pwties was contractual.

       The appellant Bank by its letter dated 13th JunP, 1977 employed the
                                                                               D
respondent for one day i.e. for 14th June, 1977. Thereafter, by a second
letter dated 15th June, 1977, he w.is appointed for one day, i.e. for 15th
June, 1977. The respondent was again given appointment for two days i.e.
for 16th and 17th June, 1977 by the appellant Bank. Each of the letters
contained an identical stipulation that the services stood automatically
terminated at the end of the day. The respondent was not given appoint-        E
ment by the appellant after 17th June, 1977.

       At the instance of the respondent, an Industrial Dispute was referred
to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the denial of employ-
ment to the respondent by the appellant Bank amounted to termination of        F
his services and declared that the respondent was entitled to employment
and he must be deemed to be in continued service/employment of the Bank
w.e.f. 16th June, 1977 with all the back wages and allowances.

      Allowing the Appeal, this Court

       HELD : 1. The respondent was given appointment for one day at a         G
time with the issuance of successive letters. The terms of the contract was
that the service automatically stood terminated at the end of the day. The
relationship between the parties was contractual. No reason had been
given by the Tribunal as to what was the obligation on the appellant. Bank
to employ the respondent. At the most the respondent was a daily wager.        H
                                    619
    620                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A This being so, the award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The appel·
    lant Bank was under no legal obligation to continue the respondent in
    e01ployment. (622-E-F]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 107 of
    1981.
B
         Fro01 the Judginent and Order dated 25.5.80 of the Central Govern-
    ment Industrial Tribunal in l.D. No. 77 of 1978.

            R.K. Maheshwari for the Appellant.

C           Ms. K. ,Sharda Devi for the Respondent.

            The Judginent of the Court was delivered by

          KIRPAL, J The appellant bank had requisitioned application for
    appointment as cashiers or cash clerks from amongst Ex-servicemen
D through the District Soldiers, Sailors and Army Board, Delhi. Thereafter
  . on 13th June, 1977 the respondent was appointed by the appellant at its
    Lajpat Nagar Branch as a temporary cashier subject to the terms and
    conditions contained in the letter of appointment. The appointment was
    only for one day, i.e., 14th June, 1977. It is the case of the appellant thaf
E the respondent thereafter was appointed at different branches for another
    three days. The total period of service of the respondent with the appellant
    was from 14th June to 17th June, 1977.

          The appellant did not give any further employment to the respondent
    after 17th June, 1977. Thereupon, at the instance of the respondent, an
F   industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was
    referred to the Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi. The only term of reference
    was as follows :

                 "Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank,
              Parliament Street, New Delhi in denying employment as Cash
G
              Cle~k to Shri Prem Singh w.e.f. 16.6.77 is legal and justified? If
              not, to what relief is the work01an entitled?"
                I .                                                                 .
           The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the respon-
     dent did not possess the requisite qualification as he had not passed .
H                ., examination or high school examination. It was contended
     matriculation
            ALLAHABAD BANK v. PREM SINGH [KIRPAL, J .]                   621

that the respondent had misrepresented that he had passed the matricula-       A
tion examination and was qualified to be appointed as a cash clerk.

      The Tribunal framed the following two issues vide its order dated
6th February, 1979 :

        ''1. Whether Shri Prem Singh is not qualified to be appointed as a     B
        cash clerk?

        2. As in the order of reference?"

By a subsequent order dated 20th June, 1979, one more issue was framed
which was as follows :                                                         C

        "l. Whether the referred matter is not an Industrial Dispute?"

        The Tribunal vide its award dated 29th May, 1980 found that the
respondent had appeared in the higher secondary examination held in
April, 1954 but had failed in the same. This examination was of class XIth.    D
The Tribunal further held that recognition had been granted to the Xth
class certificate from a higher secondary school in India as being equivalem
to matriculation certificate for the purposes of employment under the
Central Government. It, therefore, concluded that the respondent must be
regarded as having passed the matriculation examination. On merits the         E
Tribunal came to the conclusion that once a workman had been lawfully
appointed, his services could be terminated only in accordance with law
and the denial of employment to him as cash clerk by the management
amounted to termination of his services. The Tribunal then declared that
the respondent was entitled to employment and he must be deemed to be
in continued service/employment of the bank with effect from 16th June         F
1977. It further directed that the respondent should be paid his usual pay
and allowances as well as arrears of wages with effect from 16th June, 1977
till the date of the award.

      The aforesaid award has been challenged in this appeal by special G
leave. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the
respondent had any right to get any relief from the Tribunal.

      As already noticed the respondent was appointed by the appellant
only on four days. He was appointed as a temporary hand at the Lajpat
Nagar Branch on 14th June, 1977 by virtue of the letter dated 13th June,       H
    622                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 1977. Thereafter by two letters dated 15th June, 1977, he was offered
    service for· one day, i.e., 15th June, 1977 at the appellant's Karol Bagh
    Branch and for two days, i.e., 16th and 17th June, 1977 at the appellant's
    Chandni Chowk Branch. It is not disputed that the terms of employment
    contained in the said letters were more or less identical. The first term
    contained in the said letters was as follows :
B
            "l. That your appointment is on purely temporary basis for a period
            of one day, i.e., 14.6.77 after which your service will stand ter-
            minated automatically without notice. Your services can, however,
            be terminated at any time during the above period without notice." .
                J
c         It is no doubt true that the reason for the appellant for not employing
    the respondent was· that he did not possess the requisite educati<;mal
    qualification. Even if it be assumed that this reason was incorrect, the
    question w011ld still arise as to whether the bank was under any obligation
    to employ the respondent.
D
          This is not a case where by passing any order the existing services of
    a workman were terminated. The respondent was given employment for
    one day at a' time with the issuance of successive letters. The relationship
    between the parties being contractual, the term of the contract was that
    the services stood terminated at the end of the day. The Tribunal has not
E
    given any reason whatsoever as to what was the obligation on the appellant
    to employ the respondent. The status of the respondent was, at bast, that
    of a daily wager. By virtue of his letters of employment he ceased to be
    employed at the end of each day. His day's service stood automatically
    terminated: This being so the decision of the Tribunal in holding that the
F   respondent shall be deemed to have continued in service from 16th June,
    1977 and would also be entitled to usual pay and allowances is clearly
    untenable. The respondent could not insist on his being continued to be
    employed and the appellant was under no legal obligation to employ him.


G         For the aforesaid reasons the award of the Tribunal dated 29th May,
    1980 is set aside as the respondent is neither entitled to demand employ-
    ment nor is he entitled to any other relief. The appeal is accordingly
    allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

H H.K                                                           Appeal allowed.




                                                                                    "