four persons were appointed by the Rupali Bank on temporary basis as Temporary Godown Keepers. Petitioners' contention was that they have rendered service continuously to the Bank since their joining and they were getting their salary and other benefits from the Bank and so they should be treated as permanent workers. The Bank on the other hand, contended they were temporarily appointed by the Bank on the account of the borrowers and their service ceased with the adjustment of the borrowers loan account. The court held that the petitioners were not permanent workers but they should be treated as regular (temporary) workers and are entitled to benefit as are payable to such category of employees of the Bank. The important part of the decision is as follows:
"There is specific class of employees known as temporary employees, who are appointed for a specific period or as specific project or job, like that of temporary godown keepers. The appointments of such employees cannot be termed as probationers as such as the appointments were not given against any permanent or sanctioned post of the Bank. However, in view of continuous service rendered by the petitioners to the Bank, their service should be regularised in the Bank service, not in the category of permanent employees but in the category of temporary employees".
Probationer and Probation Period
Probationer. Section 4(6) defines probationer as a worker who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy in a post and has not completed the period of his probation in the establishment.