General Secretary, American Express Bank Union v. American Express Bank Ltd., (SC)
BS6211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- Sujata V. Manohar and M. Srinivasan, J.J.
C.A. No. 12361 of 1996. D/d.
17.9.1998
General Secretary, American Express Bank Union - Petitioner
Versus
American Express Bank Ltd. - Respondents
Compassionate Appointment - Terms of settlement showing that respondent- Bank only expressed willingness to consider a policy for appointment of sons, unmarried daughters and widows of employees on compassionate grounds who had died or had sought early retirement - No actual policy framed - Fact that appointment was given on compassionate grounds prior to industrial dispute raised by appellant would not lead to a conclusion that there was a policy in this connection - High Court justified in rejecting claim of appellant-workman for compassionate appointment.
[Paras 6 and 7]
ORDER
Sujata V. Manohar, J. - The dispute in this appeal centres around what has been described as Settlement 'A' dated November 28, 1973 between the management of the respondent Bank and its staff Union. Settlement 'A' is captioned as Recruitment Policy. The material part of Settlement 'A' is as follows:
Settlement 'A'
Recruitment Policy
"Bank is willing to consider a policy which would provide for recruitment of one son or an unmarried daughter or widowed wife of employees, on their retirement, death or incapacitation, provided the candidate meets the minimum requirements......."
2. According to the respondent, under Settlement 'A' they merely agreed to consider a policy for recruitment on compassionate grounds. However, in fact, no such policy was framed thereafter. In 1982 one D.R. Kashyap, Head Messenger sought early retirement and requested the management for absorption of his son in the services of the Bank in the subordinate cadre, in place of himself. This request was rejected by the management pointing out that there was no agreement to give appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. In respect of this dispute, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, on December 4, 1986. The dispute so referred was :
"Whether the action of the management of American Express International Banking corporation, new Delhi in refusing employment to the son of Shri D.R. Kashyap, Head Messenger on his retirement in violation of the agreed policy is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"
4. The Tribunal gave an award holding that the action of the management in refusing employment to the son of D.R. Kashyap, was in violation of the agreed policy contained in the agreement of November 28, 1973 and awarded consequential benefits to the son of Kashyap as set out in the award dated March 30, 1989.
5. This award has been set aside by a single Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench has dismissed the appeal of the present appellants. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that there was no agreed policy in force at the material time for giving employment to sons, unmarried daughters or widow of employees who had died or had sought early retirement.
6. The terms of Settlement 'A' show that the respondent had only expressed willingness to consider a policy for appointment of sons, unmarried daughters and widows of employees on compassionate grounds. There was no actual policy agreed upon under Settlement 'A', unlike Settlement 'B' also arrived at on the same day, which records the actual agreement arrived at. Settlement 'B' dealt with promotion from clerical to officer cadre. The language of Settlement 'B' is different from Settlement 'A'.
7. The appellants, however, contend that after Settlement 'A' dated November 28, 1973, in fact, sons of three employees who retired were given appointment on compassionate grounds in 1973, 1975 and some date (not specified) after 1973. After 1984, however, although 12 persons applied out of 20 who retired, none was given appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellants, therefore, contend that after the dispute raised by Kashyap in 1982, nobody has been given appointment on compassionate grounds while prior thereto, appointments have been given on compassionate grounds. However, this would not lead to a conclusion that there was a policy in this connection which was actually in force pursuant to the agreement of November 28, 1973. The table annexed by the appellants showing the list of employees who have retired/died from 1973-83 and employment provided to their sons shows that the son of one person who died prior to 1973 had also been given appointment on compassionate grounds. Unfortunately, the management has made its stand very clear in connection with the formulation of such a policy. In their affidavit filed here for the first time they claim to have set up instead a "Death Benefit Policy" in 1991 de hors the settlement of November 28, 1973. But one thing is clear. Rightly or wrongly, there does not seem to be any existing policy framed pursuant to Settlement 'A' of November 28, 1973.
8. In view thereof, we do not see any reason to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.