to absorb respondents-Workmen. Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to submit that the dispute regarding employment and non-employment comes within the ambit of „industrial dispute‟ and so, respondents-Workmen were well within their right to seek the Reference, which is not time barred. 16. Attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for respondents-Workmen to the counter affidavit filed in the lead case i.e. W.P. (C) 7247/2007, to highlight the instances in paragraph MM to indicate that the candidates, who were found unsuitable in the interview have been found suitable upon review of their result, but no basis is disclosed as to how such candidates, who were earlier assessed to be dull and inactive, have been found suitable. So, it is submitted that entire process of re-absorption is vitiated. It is further submitted that the review of the result is unfair, which has resulted in invidious discrimination and so, the Tribunal has rightly directed petitioner-Bank to absorb respondents-Workmen. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court’s decision in Hari Nandan Prasad and Another v. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another, (2014) 7 SCC 190 to submit that where it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by employer and the workmen in question, who had approached the Court, are at par with them, then direction for regularization of such case is justified, otherwise, non-regularization of left-over workmen would amount to invidious discrimination and thus, the directions issued by the Tribunal in the said decision for regularization were restored.
