Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 25-09-2018 in case of petitioner name Punjab National Bank vs PNB Canteen Workers Union
| |

Supreme Court Rules on Absorption of Canteen Workers in Punjab National Bank

The case of Punjab National Bank v. PNB Canteen Workers Union (Calcutta) & Ors. centers around the dispute regarding the absorption of 29 canteen workers employed by the Punjab National Bank (PNB) into the permanent workforce. The issue arose after the workers, who were initially employed on a contractual basis, sought regularization of their employment. The appeal was filed by the Punjab National Bank, challenging the decision of the High Court that directed the Bank to absorb the workers into permanent positions with benefits equal to other class-IV employees. The Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing the facts of the case and providing a final resolution under its powers conferred by Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

Background of the Case

The dispute traces its roots back to the appointment of workers in the Bank’s canteen in Calcutta. Over the years, the 29 workers, who were represented by the PNB Canteen Workers Union, claimed that they were working in conditions equivalent to permanent employees of the Bank. However, despite their long-standing employment, the workers were still hired on a temporary basis without the benefits and security that permanent employees enjoyed.

In 2015, the workers filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta, seeking regularization of their services, claiming that they had been working in the Bank’s canteen for a considerable period and should be entitled to the same rights and benefits as other employees. The High Court ruled in favor of the workers, directing the Bank to absorb them into the workforce and extend similar benefits. The Bank appealed this order to the Supreme Court, seeking a modification of the ruling.

Legal Issues Involved

  • Whether the 29 canteen workers are entitled to regularization and absorption into permanent positions in the Bank.
  • Whether the High Court’s order granting benefits equal to other class-IV employees was correct in the absence of an official policy for the absorption of such workers.
  • Whether the appellants, i.e., the Punjab National Bank, had sufficient grounds to challenge the High Court’s judgment and the relief granted to the workers.

Arguments by the Appellant (Punjab National Bank)

The appellant, Punjab National Bank, argued that:

  • The Bank had no obligation to absorb the workers into permanent positions, as there was no policy or practice to absorb temporary workers from the canteen into regular employment.
  • The workers were employed under a contract, and there was no legal compulsion for the Bank to make them permanent employees.
  • The workers’ demand for permanent status was unreasonable, as they were hired on a temporary basis, and there had been no commitment from the Bank for regularization.

Arguments by the Respondent (PNB Canteen Workers Union)

The respondents, represented by the PNB Canteen Workers Union, argued that:

  • The workers had been employed by the Bank for many years under continuous and uninterrupted service, and were effectively performing the same duties as permanent employees.
  • The workers were entitled to the same benefits, including wages and job security, as permanent employees of the Bank.
  • The workers had been denied fair treatment and were subjected to exploitation, which violated their rights under labor laws.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the submissions, made several key observations:

Similar Posts