JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 24th November, 1997 passed by the Labour Court by which the petitioner-bank was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 2.
3. The controversy in the aforesaid writ petition is confined as to whether a person working as a "Canteen Boy" by the Staff Welfare Committee of the employers in State Bank of India is entitled to regularization in services of the bank or, does he become an employee of the State Bank of India. The parties before the Labour Court were Staff Welfare Committee State Bank of India through Secretary, Krishi Vikas Branch, Ram Nagar Etawah, Employer v. Surendra Singh son of Sri Sultan Singh through B.P. Pandey, 106/371, Hiraganj, Kanpur, Workman and the following reference was made :
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed Jh lqjsUnz flag iq= Jh lqYrku flag] dS.Vhu Cok;] dks fnukd 13-5-91 ls dk;Z ls i`[email protected] fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k [email protected]{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk \**
4. It is contended that the bank was not made a party before the Labour Court and in fact only "Staff Welfare Committee" was impleaded as a party which has never been in existence at the concerned branch. It is further urged that though the bank was not made a party before the Labour Court and the award as made is being enforced against the bank, hence the writ petition. It is submitted that appropriate Government in case of State Bank of India is the Central Government and not the State Government whereas in the present case the reference has been made by the State Government.
5. The Labour Court by the impugned award has held that the employer is liable to reinstate the workman on the same terms and conditions of service with effect from 13.3.1997, i.e., the date of order of reference. The operative portion of the order of the Labour Court dated 24.11.1997 is as under :
^^oknh Jfed ds fyf[kr dFku] vfHkys[kksa rFkk ekSf[kd lk{; dk v/;;u djus ds mijkar eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pk gw¡ fd oknh Jfed lqjsUnz flag dS.Vhu Cok; dks fnukad 13-5-1991 ls dk;Z ls i`[email protected] fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud ugha gS A lsok;kstd oknh Jfed dks fnukad 13-3-1997 lanHkkZns'k dh frfFk ls iqjkuh lsok 'krks± ij lsok esa iquZLFkkfir djsa A bl okn esa esjk fu.kZ; blh vuqlkj gS A**
6. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that there is no direction of the Labour Court to the petitioner-State Bank of India, hence the present writ petition filed by it is not maintainable because the petitioner is neither party before the Labour Court nor the Labour Court has issued any direction to the petitioner-State Bank of India, as such the petitioner-bank has no cause of action for filing the present writ petition against the impugned award. It is next contended that the impugned award of the Court can be enforced against the employer that is Staff Welfare Committee State Bank of India, which inspite of notice of the award has not come before this Court, hence the petition by the bank, is misconceived and that the Staff Welfare Committee, State Bank of India Ram Nagar, Etawah has not challenged the award hence, the award has attained finality against the employer. It is next submitted that in view of the amendment of the definition of Appropriate Government in the Industrial Disputes Act, the State Government is competent to refer the Industrial Dispute. Alternatively, it is submitted that Annexures-C.A.-1 and C.A.-2 are the documents which were considered by the Labour Court and which conclusively proved that the respondent workman has worked in the bank for more than 10 years and was paid his wages by the bank. The said finding of fact based on cogent evidence cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. Hence, the said finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Counsel for the petitioner-bank submits that the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal Circle) and Ors., 2000 (5) SCC 520, in which it was held that the employees of the canteens which are ran at various branches by the Local Implementation Committee as per the welfare Scheme framed by the S.B.I. would not become employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arising under the award to run such canteens.
8. From perusal of the records it appears that respondent No. 2 workman had been engaged by the Local Implementation Committee of the Clerical Staff of the Bank as Canteen Boy. The engaged of the workman-respondent No. 2 has nothing to do with the management bank as neither he was appointed, by the Bank nor his services were terminated by the petitioner-bank. Therefore, the workman-respondent No. 2 is not the employee of the Bank. The respondent workman being not an employee of the Bank, is not entitled for regularizatlon in the bank and the award cannot be enforced against the petitioner.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24th November, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, respondent No. 1, cannot be enforced against the bank. The impugned award in so far as it is sought to be enforced against the bank is quashed. No order as to cost.