http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ALLAHABAD BANK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI PREM SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/09/1996

BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   678

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      KIRPAL, J.      The appellant  bank had  requisitioned applications for appointment as  cashiers or  cash clerks  from  amongst  Ex- servicemen 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 appointement.  The appointement was only for one eday, i.e., 14th June, 1977. It is the case of  the   appellant  that   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  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 clerk      of shri  Prem Singh  w.e.f. 16.6.77      is legal  and justified? If not, to      what   relief    is   the   workman      entitled?"      The case  of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the respondent  did not  possess the requisite qualification as he  had not  passed  matriculation  examination  or  high school examination. It was contended that the respondent had misrepresented  that   he  had   passed  the   matriculation examination and  was qualified  to be  appointed as  a  cash clerk.      The Tribunal  framed the  following two issues vide its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

order dated 6th February, 1979:-      "1.  whether Shri Prem Singh is not      qualified to be appointed as a 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:-      "1.   Whether the refered 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.  The Tribunal  further held that  recognition had  been granted  to the  Xth  class certificated from  a higher  secondary school  in  India  as being  equivalent   to  matriculation  certificate  for  the purposes of  employment under  the central  Government.  It, therfore, concluded  that the respondent must be regarded as having passed  the matriculation  examination. On merits the 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, 1977 till the date of the award.      The aforesaid  award has been challenged in this appeal by  special  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, 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  at the appellant’s Chandni Chowk Branch. It is not disputed that  the terms of employment contained in the said letters were  not more  or less  identical. The  first  term contained in the said letters was as follows:-      "1.     That  your  appointment  is      purely temporary basis for a period      of  one  day,  i.e.  14.6.77  after      which  your   service  will   stand      terminated  automatically   without      notice. Your  service can, however,      be terminated at any time the above      period without notice."      It is  no doubt  true that the reason for the appellant for not employing the respondent was that he did not possess the requisite  educational  qualification.  Even  if  it  be assumed that  this reason  was incorrect, the question would still arise  as to whether the bank was under any obligation to employ the respondent.      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 given any reason tsoever as to what was the obligation  on the  appellant to  employ the respondent. The status  of the  respondent was, at best, that of a daily wager. By  virtue of his letters of employment  he ceased to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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