compensation payable to such persons. I have already held that in the absence of assistance from the Bank and from the Unions it is not possible to determine the number of persons from casual/daily wagers, who were included in the list of temporary employees. The Hon'ble High Court in the batch of writ petitions filed against the Awards in ID 207 of 2004 batch and ID 80 of 2000 batch gave a factual finding that some casual/daily wagers were included in the list of temporary employees and they were given employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also took that finding into consideration and directed me to find out if really there was jumbling of list. At the risk writ petition, in the absence of any assistance from the Bank as well as the Union it is not possible to find out the number of persons, who were employed as casual/daily wagers and who were included in the list of temporary employees and later absorbed in employment. At the same time, as suggested by the learned Counsel Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, I cannot draw adverse inference and cannot come to a conclusion that all the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would have been benefitted if there had been no jumbling of list. However, considering the fact that the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court are fighting their cause from 2000 onwards and the Bank, which is expected to maintain the records regarding the date of entry, length of services all employees including casual /daily wager does not come forward to furnish the particulars such as date of entry, length of service of the temporary employees and casual/daily wagers, and the Union also is not prepared to give the details of those casual/daily wagers, who were absorbed in employment along with temporary employees, I am of the opinion that it would be justified if compensation is paid to the workers, who are parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The next question that arises for consideration is what would be the quantum of compensation payable to the workers/ respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The lis is pending from 2000 and the workers succeeded before the Hon'ble High Court. It is stated in the ID 207 of 2004 batch, 284 temporary employees were parties. In ID 80 of 2000 batch 19 temporary the High Court viz, the temporary employees were also parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as respondents, that cannot be ascertained by me. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also made it clear in their order that my determination of this issue will not be available for further challenge and the benefit, if any would also go to any of the respondents alone before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not to open another pandora box after 3 decades. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded by me is payable only to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
