ALLAHABAD BANK versus SHRI PREM SINGH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 09-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ALLAHABAD BANK 
v. 
SHRI PREM SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
Contractual employment-Can a contractual employee seek employ-
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 
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. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
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 
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 
G 
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] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 107 of 
1981. 
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. 
F 
G 
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 
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 matriculation examination or high school examination. It was contended 
., 
ALLAHABAD BANK v. PREM SINGH [KIRP AL, 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 t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.