2792 GI/2025

(1775)

रजजस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 17]

नइ ददल् ली, मइ 4—मइ 10, 2025, िजनवार/वैिाख 14—वैिाख 20, 1947

No. 17]

NEW DELHI, MAY 4—MAY 10, 2025, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 14–VAISAKHA 20, 1947

आस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती िै जजससे दक यि ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण् ड 3—ईृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजधक अदेि और ऄजधसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 24 माचच, 2025

का.अ. 725.—बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की

ईृ-धारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, केनरा बैंक के मु्‍य

मिाप्रबंधक श्री डी. सुरेन्रन (जन्म जतजथः 21.5.1967) को कायचभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से ईनकी ऄजधवर्षिता की अयु

प्राप्त करने की तारीख ऄथाचत 31.5.2027 तक ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, ृंजाब नैिनल बैंक में

कायचृालक जनदेिक के ृद ृर जनयुि करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 4/5(ii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23052025-263321

CG-DL-W-23052025-263321

1776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2025

S.O. 725.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri D

Surendran (DoB: 21.05.1967), Chief General Manager, Canara Bank as Executive Director in Punjab National Bank,

with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation

i.e., 31.05.2027, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[e F. No. 4/5(ii)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 24 माचच, 2025

का.अ. 726. —बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की

ईृ-धारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, केनरा बैंक के मु्‍य

मिाप्रबंधक श्री एस. के. मजूमदार (जन्म जतजथः 15.1.1969) को कायचभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन विच की ऄवजध

के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, केनरा बैंक में कायचृालक जनदेिक के ृद ृर जनयुि करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 4/5(i)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2025

S.O. 726.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby appoints

Shri S K Majumdar (DoB: 15.01.1969), Chief General Manager, Canara Bank as Executive Director in Canara Bank

for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/5(i)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 2 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 727. —भारतीय ररजवच बैंक ऄजधजनयम, 1934 की धारा 8 की ईृ-धारा (4) के साथ ृर त

ईृ-धारा (1) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, डॉ. ृूनम गुप्ता (जन् म जतजथ

7.5.1969), मिाजनदेिक, राष्ट्रीय ऄनुप्रयुि अर्षथक ऄनुसंधान ृररिद, नइ ददल्ली को कायचभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से

तीन विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, भारतीय ररजवच बैंक में ईृ-गवनचर के ृद ृर

जनयुि करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 1/2/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 727.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of

section 8 of The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. Poonam Gupta

(DoB: 07.05.1969), Director General, National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi, to the post of

Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, for a period of three years from the date of joining the post or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 1/2/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1777

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 728.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री सूरज श्रीवास्ट्तव

(जन्म जतजथः 23.12.1973) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी

ृिले िो, यूजनयन बैंक अफ आंजडया के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 6/1(xi)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 728.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with

sub-clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970,

the Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Suraj Srivastava (DoB: 23.12.1973) as Part-time, Non-Official

Director on the Board of Directors of Union Bank of India for a period of one year from the date of notification, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(xi)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 729.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री ऄंजन तालुकदार

(जन्म जतजथः 14.1.1967) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी

ृिले िो, यूको बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 6/1(x)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 729.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the

Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Anjan Talukdar (DoB: 14.01.1967) as Part-time, Non-Official Director

on the Board of Directors of UCO Bank, for a period of one year from the date of notification, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(x)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 730.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री रजव कुमार

ऄग्रवाल (जन्म जतजथः 6.8.1965) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो

भी ृिले िो, यूको बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा.सं. 6/1(ix)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

1778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 730.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with

sub-clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970,

the Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Ravi Kumar Agrawal (DoB: 06.08.1965) as Part-time, Non-

Official Director on the Board of Directors of UCO Bank, for a period of one year from the date of notification, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(ix)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 731.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री िंकर लाल

ऄग्रवाल (जन्म जतजथः 30.11.1959) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक,

जो भी ृिले िो, ृंजाब एंड ससध बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत

करती िै।

[इ फा.सं. 6/1(viii)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 731.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980) read with

sub-clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980,

the Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal (DoB: 30.11.1959) as Part-time, Non-Official

Director on the Board of Directors of Punjab & Sind Bank, for a period of one year from the date of notification, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(viii)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 732.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री सुरेि कुमार रंगटा

(जन्म जतजथः 7.7.1956) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले

िो, आजण्डयन ओवरसीज बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 6/1(vii)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 732.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with

sub-clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970,

the Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Suresh Kumar Rungta (DoB: 07.07.1956) as Part-time, Non-

Official Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank, for a period of one year from the date of

notification, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(vii)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1779

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 733.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री बी. चन्र रेड्डी

(जन्म जतजथः 14.4.1958) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी

ृिले िो, आजण्डयन ओवरसीज बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 6/1(vi)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 733.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with

sub-clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970,

the Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri B. Chandra Reddy (DoB: 14.4.1958) as Part-time, Non-Official

Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank, for a period of one year from the date of notification, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(vi)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 734.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री दीृक िमाच

(जन्म जतजथः 31.7.1976) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी

ृिले िो, आजण्डयन ओवरसीज बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 6/1(v)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 734.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the

Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Deepak Sharma (DoB: 31.07.1976) as Part-time, Non-Official Director

on the Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank, for a period of one year from the date of notification, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(v)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 735.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री बालमुकुंद सिाय

1780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(जन्म जतजथः 5.1.1964) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले

िो, आंजडयन बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 6/1(iv)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 735.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the

Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Balmukund Sahay (DoB: 05.01.1964) as Part-time, Non-Official

Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Bank for a period of one year from the date of notification, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(iv)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 736.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री प्रदीृ प्राणलाल

जखमानी (जन्म जतजथः 26.2.1959) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक,

जो भी ृिले िो, सेन्रल बैंक अफ आंजडया के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत

करती िै।

[इ फा.सं. 6/1(ii)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 736.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the

Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Pradip Pranlal Khimani (DoB: 26.02.1959) as Part-time, Non-Official

Director on the Board of Directors of Central Bank of India, for a period of one year from the date of notification, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(ii)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 737.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री जवश्वेि कुमार

गोयल (जन्म जतजथः 2.3.1963) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो

भी ृिले िो, आंजडयन बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा. सं. 6/1(iii)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1781

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 737.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the

Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Vishvesh Kumar Goel (DoB: 02.03.1963) as Part-time, Non-Official

Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Bank, for a period of one year from the date of notification, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(iii)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 738.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणच ईृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के खंड (3) के ईृ-खंड (1) के साथ

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (ईृक्रमों का ऄजचन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) की धारा 9 की ईृ-धारा (3) के

खंड (ज) और ईृ-धारा (3क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, सुश्री नजलनी

ृदमनाभन (जन्म जतजथः 20.7.1964) को ऄजधसूचना की तारीख से एक विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक,

जो भी ृिले िो, केनरा बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में ऄंिकाजलक गैर-सरकारी जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िै।

[इ फा.सं. 6/1(i)/2024-बीओ-I]

जवजय िंकर जतवारी, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2025

S.O. 738.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A) of

section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with

sub-clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970,

the Central Government hereby re-nominates Ms. Nalini Padmanabhan (DoB: 20.07.1964) as Part-time, Non-Official

Director on the Board of Directors of Canara Bank, for a period of one year from the date of notification, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 6/1(i)/2024-BO-I]

VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 17 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 739.—बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजधकरण ऄजधजनयम, 1999 (1999 का 41) की धारा 4 द्वारा

प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, डॉ. एम. ृी. तजन्गराला, भूतृूवच ऄृर सजचव, जवत्तीय

सेवाएं जवभाग के स्ट्थान ृर श्री प्रिांत कुमार गोयल, संयुि सजचव, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और ऄगले

अदेिों तक, भारतीय बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजधकरण में ऄंिकाजलक सदस्ट्य के प ृ में नाजमत करती िै।

[फा.सं. ए -11013/03/2024-बीमा-I]

नेिा चौिान, संयुक् त जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 739.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Parshant Kumar Goyal, Joint

Secretary, Department of Financial Services as part-time member of the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority of India with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Dr. M. P. Tangirala, former Additional

Secretary, Department of Financial Services.

[F. No. A-11013/03/2024-Ins-I]

NEHA CHAUHAN, Jt. Director

1782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 17 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 740.—भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम ऄजधजनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की धारा 4(2)(घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त

िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, डॉ. एम. ृी. तजन्गराला, भूतृूवच ऄृर सजचव, जवत्तीय सेवाएं

जवभाग के स्ट्थान ृर श्री प्रिांत कुमार गोयल, संयुि सजचव, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और ऄगले

अदेिों तक, भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम के बोडच में जनदेिक नाजमत करती िै।

[फा.सं. ए-11013/03/2024-बीमा-I]

नेिा चौिान, संयुक् त जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 740.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4(2)(d) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby nominates, Shri Parshant Kumar Goyal, Joint Secretary,

Department of Financial Services as Director on the Board of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, with

immediate effect and until further orders, vice Dr. M. P. Tangirala, former Additional Secretary, Department of

Financial Services.

[F. No. A-11013/03/2024-Ins-I]

NEHA CHAUHAN, Jt. Director

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

(केन्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोडच)

नइ ददल्ली, 1 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 741.—केंर सरकार, राजभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केंरीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोडच के ऄधीन जनम्नजलजखत कायाचलयों, जजनके

80 प्रजतित से ऄजधक कमचाररयों ने सिदी का कायच साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को ऄजधसूजचत करती िै:—

प्रधान मु्‍य अयकर अयुि, गुजरात, ऄिमदाबाद

क्रम सं.

कायाचलय का नाम

1

कायाचलय प्रधान मु्‍य अयकर अयुि, गुजरात,ऄिमदाबाद

2

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि(प्रिासन एवं करदाता सेवाएँ),ऄिमदाबाद

3

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(मु.)(प्रिा.),ऄिमदाबाद

4

कायाचलय ईृ/संयुि अयकर अयुि(मु.)(प्रिा.),ऄिमदाबाद

5

कायाचलय ईृ/संयुि अयकर अयुि(मु.)(संृदा),ऄिमदाबाद

6

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)(प्रिा.),ऄिमदाबाद

7

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (जनसंृकच ऄजधकारी), ऄिमदाबाद

8

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(कल्याण),ऄिमदाबाद

9

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(मु.)(कार्षमक),ऄिमदाबाद

10

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि(मु.)(कार्षमक),ऄिमदाबाद

11

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)(कार्षमक),ऄिमदाबाद

12

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एम.एस.टी.यू.), ऄिमदाबाद

13

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (मु.)(समन्वय एवं करदाता सेवाएं), ऄिमदाबाद

14

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (मु.)(समन्वय एवं करदाता सेवाएं), ऄिमदाबाद

15

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)(समन्वय),ऄिमदाबाद

16

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एसडबल्यूसीसी एवं टीृीएस),ऄिमदाबाद

17

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (कम्पप्यूटर ऑृरेिन), ऄिमदाबाद

18

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (कम्पप्यूटर ऑृरेिन), ऄिमदाबाद

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1783

19

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (ृद्धजत), ऄिमदाबाद

20

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (प्रणाली), ऄिमदाबाद

21

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि(न्याजयक),ऄिमदाबाद

22

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(मु.)(न्याजयक), ऄिमदाबाद

23

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि(मु.)(न्याजयक), ऄिमदाबाद

24

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)(न्याजयक), ऄिमदाबाद

25

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)(न्याजयक-1), ऄिमदाबाद

26

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(ओएसडी)(न्याजयक), ऄिमदाबाद

27

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि(ऑजडट), ऄिमदाबाद

28

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (मु.)(ऑजडट), ऄिमदाबाद

29

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(ऑजडट), ऄिमदाबाद

30

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर अयुि (ओएसडी)(मु.)(ऑजडट) (एसएृी), ऄिमदाबाद

31

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-1,ऄिमदाबाद

32

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-2,ऄिमदाबाद

33

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-3,ऄिमदाबाद

34

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-4,ऄिमदाबाद

35

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-5,ऄिमदाबाद

36

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-6,ऄिमदाबाद

37

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-7,ऄिमदाबाद

38

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.), गांधीनगर

39

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-1, वडोदरा

40

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-2, वडोदरा

41

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-3, वडोदरा

42

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-4, वडोदरा

43

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-1, राजकोट

44

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-2, राजकोट

45

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.)-3, राजकोट

46

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.), जामनगर

47

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऑजडट)(अइ.ए.ृी.)-1, सूरत

48

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऑजडट)(अइ.ए.ृी.)-2, सूरत

49

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऑजडट)(अइ.ए.ृी.)-3, सूरत

50

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (अइ.ए.ृी.), वलसाड

51

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि(डीअर)(अइटीएटी)-1,ऄिमदाबाद

52

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(अइटीएटी)-1(1) ,ऄिमदाबाद

53

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, (अइटीएटी)-1(1),ऄिमदाबाद

54

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि(डीअर)(अइटीएटी)-2,ऄिमदाबाद

55

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(अइटीएटी)-2(1) ,ऄिमदाबाद

56

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, (अइटीएटी)-2(1),ऄिमदाबाद

57

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि(डीअर)(अइटीएटी)-3,ऄिमदाबाद

58

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(अइटीएटी)-3(1),ऄिमदाबाद

1784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

59

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, (अइटीएटी)-3(1),ऄिमदाबाद

60

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि(डीअर)(अइटीएटी)-4,ऄिमदाबाद

61

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(अइटीएटी)-4(1) ,ऄिमदाबाद

62

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, (अइटीएटी)-4(1),ऄिमदाबाद

63

कायाचलय एसएमसी बैंच, ऄिमदाबाद

64

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी,(अइटीएटी)-1(1),ऄिमदाबाद

65

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि अइटीएटी(मु.) एवं प्रिासन, ऄिमदाबाद

66

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि,(अइटीएटी)-3(1),ऄिमदाबाद

67

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(अइटीएटी)-1(1) ,ऄिमदाबाद

68

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, अइटीएटी-3(1),ऄिमदाबाद

69

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि(छूट), ऄिमदाबाद

70

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि(छूट)(मु.),ऄिमदाबाद

71

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट)(मु.),ऄिमदाबाद

72

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट)(कर वसूली ऄजधकारी),ऄिमदाबाद

कायाचलय छूट, रेंज-1, ऄिमदाबाद

73

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(छूट),रेंज-1, ऄिमदाबाद

74

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि(छूट)सकचल-1,ऄिमदाबाद

75

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट),वाडच-1,ऄिमदाबाद

76

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट),वाडच-2,ऄिमदाबाद

77

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट),ृालनृुर वाडच

78

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट),भावनगर वाडच

कायाचलय छूट, रेंज-2, ऄिमदाबाद

79

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(छूट),रेंज-2,ऄिमदाबाद

80

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि(छूट)सकचल-2,ऄिमदाबाद

81

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट), वडोदरा वाडच

82

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट)-1,राजकोट वाडच

83

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट)-2,राजकोट वाडच

84

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (छूट),सूरत वाडच

85

कायाचलय अयकर जनदेिक(असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण), ऄिमदाबाद

86

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)(असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण), ऄिमदाबाद

87

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर जनदेिक((असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण), ऄिमदाबाद

88

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर जनदेिक((असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण), ऄिमदाबाद

89

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण)-1, ऄिमदाबाद

90

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण)-2, ऄिमदाबाद

91

कायाचलय प्रिा.ऄजध.एवं डीडीओ((असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण), ऄिमदाबाद

92

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी एवं डीडीओ (असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण),वडोदरा

93

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण),भरच

94

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी एवं डीडीओ(असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण),राजकोट

95

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण), जामनगर

96

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर जनदेिक((असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण),सूरत

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1785

97

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी एवं डीडीओ(असूचना एवं ऄृराध ऄन्वेिण),सूरत

98

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि (ऄंतराचष्ट्रीय कराधान एवं ऄंतरण मूल्य जनधाचरण),ऄिमदाबाद

99

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(टी. ृी.),ऄिमदाबाद

100

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि (टी. ृी.)-1,ऄिमदाबाद

101

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि (टी. ृी.)-2,ऄिमदाबाद

102

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(ऄंत॰ करा.),ऄिमदाबाद

103

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(ऄंत.करा. एवं ऄंत.मूल्य जनधाचरण),ऄिमदाबाद

104

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि(ऄंत.करा.)-1,ऄिमदाबाद

105

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि(ऄंत.करा.)-2,ऄिमदाबाद

106

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(ऄंत.करा.)-1,ऄिमदाबाद

107

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(ऄंत.करा.)-2,ऄिमदाबाद

108

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि(ऄंत. करा.), वडोदरा

109

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि(ऄंत.करा.),वडोदरा

110

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि(ऄंत.करा.),राजकोट

111

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(ऄंत.करा.),सूरत

112

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(ऄंत.करा.),गांधीधाम

113

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (मु.) (ऄंत.करा. एवं ऄंत.मू.जन.),ऄिमदाबाद

114

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(तकनीकी)(ऄंत.करा. ),ऄिमदाबाद

115

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी,कर वसूली ऄजधकारी,ऄिमदाबाद

116

कायाचलय मु्‍य अयकर अयुि-1, ऄिमदाबाद

117

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(तकनीकी)-1,ऄिमदाबाद

118

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि-1. ऄिमदाबाद

119

कायाचलय ऄृर /संयुि अयकर अयुि जविेि रेंज-1, ऄिमदाबाद

120

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-1(1), ऄिमदाबाद

121

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-1(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

122

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

123

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(1)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

124

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

125

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

126

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

127

कायाचलय ऄृर /संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-2(1), ऄिमदाबाद

128

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-2(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

129

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

130

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-5(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

131

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-6(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

132

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, जिम्पमतनगर

133

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, मोडासा

134

कायाचलय ऄृर /संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-1, भावनगर

135

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-1, भावनगर

136

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(1), भावनगर

1786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

137

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(2), भावनगर

138

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(8), भावनगर

139

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(9), भावनगर

140

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(10), भावनगर

141

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि-3, ऄिमदाबाद

142

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-3,ऄिमदाबाद

143

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(तकनीकी)-3,ऄिमदाबाद

144

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-3(1), ऄिमदाबाद

145

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-3(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

146

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

147

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

148

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

149

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(3)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

150

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-7(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

151

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-4(1), ऄिमदाबाद

152

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-4(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

153

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-4(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

154

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-4(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

155

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-4(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

156

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, सुरेन्रनगर

157

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2, सुरेन्रनगर

158

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज, गांधीनगर

159

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल, गांधीनगर

160

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, गांधीनगर

161

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, ृालनृुर

162

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, ृाटण

163

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, मेिसाणा

164

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-5, मेिसाणा

165

कायाचलय मु्‍य अयकर अयुि, राजकोट

166

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-1,मु.अ.अ.,राजकोट

167

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-2,मु.अ.अ.,राजकोट

168

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि-1, राजकोट

169

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-1,राजकोट

170

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-2,राजकोट

171

कायाचलय कर वसूली ऄजधकारी-1, राजकोट

172

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-1(1), राजकोट

173

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-1(1), राजकोट

174

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(1)(1), राजकोट

175

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(2)(1), राजकोट

176

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, जूनागढ़

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1787

177

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-4, जूनागढ़, वेरावल

178

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, मोरबी

179

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-2(1), राजकोट

180

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-2(1), राजकोट

181

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल, गांधीधाम

182

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(1)(1), राजकोट

183

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(2)(1), राजकोट

184

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(2)(3), राजकोट

185

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(1)(1), राजकोट

186

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(1)(4), राजकोट-ऄमरेली

187

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, गांधीधाम

188

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2, गांधीधाम

189

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3, गांधीधाम (भुज-1)

190

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-4, गांधीधाम (भुज-2)

191

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-5, गांधीधाम (मुन्रा)

192

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि, जामनगर

193

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-1,जामनगर

194

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-2,जामनगर

195

कायाचलय कर वसूली ऄजधकारी, जामनगर

196

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज, जामनगर

197

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-1, जामनगर

198

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-2(1), जामनगर

199

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(2), जामनगर

200

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(3), जामनगर

201

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(5), जामनगर

202

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(1),जामनगर

203

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(6), जामनगर

204

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(10), जामनगर

205

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(3), ृोरबंदर

206

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(4), ृोरबंदर

207

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(4), द्वारका

208

कायाचलय मु्‍य अयकर अयुि, सूरत

209

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-1, मु.अ.अ.,सूरत

210

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-2, मु.अ.अ.,सूरत

211

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि-1, सूरत

212

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(तकनीकी)-1,सूरत

213

कायाचलय कर वसूली ऄजधकारी-1, सूरत

214

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि जविेि रेंज-1, सूरत

215

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-1(1), सूरत

216

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-1(1)(1), सूरत

1788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

217

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(1)(1), सूरत

218

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(1)(3), सूरत

219

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(2)(1), सूरत

220

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(2)(1), सूरत

221

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(3)(1), सूरत

222

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-1(3), सूरत

223

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-1(3), सूरत

224

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(2)(6), सूरत

225

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(3)(1), सूरत

226

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(3)(6), सूरत

227

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(2)(6), सूरत

228

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, बारडोली

229

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-2(1), सूरत

230

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-2(1)(1), सूरत

231

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(1)(1), सूरत

232

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(1)(3), सूरत

233

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(2)(1), सूरत

234

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(3)(1), सूरत

235

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(3)(4), सूरत

236

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि-1, वडोदरा

237

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)-1,वडोदरा

238

कायाचलय कर वसूली ऄजधकारी-1, वडोदरा

239

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि जविेि रेंज-1, वडोदरा

240

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-1(1), वडोदरा

241

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-1(1)(1), वडोदरा

242

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(1)(1), वडोदरा

243

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(2)(1), वडोदरा

244

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(3)(1), वडोदरा

245

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-4(1)(7), वडोदरा

246

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(3)(1), ृेटलाद

247

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज-2(1), वडोदरा

248

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि सकचल-2(1), वडोदरा

249

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि अणंद सकचल, अणंद

250

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(1)(1), वडोदरा

251

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(1)(1), वडोदरा

252

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3(1)(4), वडोदरा

253

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1(1), भरच

254

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2(1), भरच

255

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, नजडयाद

256

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, अणंद

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1789

257

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, दािोद

258

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, गोधरा

259

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, लुनावाड़ा

260

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि, वलसाड

261

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(तकनीकी), वलसाड

262

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु्‍यालय), वलसाड

263

कायाचलय कर वसूली ऄजधकारी, वलसाड

264

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज, नवसारी

265

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि नवसारी सकचल, नवसारी

266

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, नवसारी

267

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2, नवसारी

268

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3, नवसारी

269

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-4, नवसारी

270

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-5, नवसारी

271

कायाचलय ऄृर / संयुि अयकर अयुि रेंज, वलसाड

272

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि, वलसाड सकचल, वलसाड

273

कायाचलय ईृ /सिायक अयकर अयुि वाृी सकचल, वाृी

274

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, वलसाड

275

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-2, वलसाड

276

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-3, वलसाड

277

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-4, वलसाड

278

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-5, वलसाड

279

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी दमण वाडच, दमण

280

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी जसलवासा वाडच, जसलवासा

281

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-1, वाृी

282

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-5, वाृी

283

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडच-7, वाृी

284

कायाचलय मु्‍ य अयकर अयुक् त(टी.डी.एस.), ऄिमदाबाद

285

कायाचलय ईृ-अयकर/सिायक अयकर अयुक् त(मु.)(टी.डी.एस.), ऄिमदाबाद

286

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.) (टी.डी.एस.), ऄिमदाबाद

287

कायाचलय प्रिासजनक ऄजधकारी एवं डीडीओ(मु) (टी.डी.एस.), ऄिमदाबाद

288

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक् त(टी.डी.एस.), ऄिमदाबाद

289

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (मु्‍ यालय) (टी.डी.एस.), ऄिमदाबाद

290

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (तकनीकी) (टी.डी.एस.), ऄिमदाबाद

291

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर अयुक् त (टी.डी.एस.), - रेन् ज, ऄिमदाबाद

292

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुक् त(टी.डी.एस.), सकचल , ऄिमदाबाद

293

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(टी.डी.एस.), वॉडच-1, ऄिमदाबाद

294

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(टी.डी.एस.), वॉडच-2, ऄिमदाबाद

295

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(टी.डी.एस.), वॉडच-3, ऄिमदाबाद

296

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(टी.डी.एस.), वॉडच-गाँधीनगर

1790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

297

कायाचलय प्रिासजनक ऄजधकारी एवं डीडीओ(टी.डी.एस.), रेन् ज-ऄिमदाबाद

298

कायाचलय संयुक् त अयकर अयुक् त(टी.डी.एस.), रेंज - राजकोट

299

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुक् त (टी.डी.एस.), सकचल-राजकोट

300

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(टी.डी.एस.), वॉडच-1, राजकोट एवं डीडीओ(टी.डी.एस.), राजकोट

301

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(टी.डी.एस.), वॉडच-2, राजकोट

302

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(टी.डी.एस.), वॉडच-3, जामनगर

303

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(टी.डी.एस.), वॉडच-4, गॉधीधाम

304

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि (टी.डी.एस.), वडोदरा

305

कायाचलय ऄृर/ संयुि अयकर अयुि (टी.डी.एस.), वडोदरा

306

कायाचलय ईृ/ सिायक अयकर अयुि (टी.डी.एस.), वडोदरा

307

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (टी.डी.एस.)-1, वडोदरा

308

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (टी.डी.एस.)-2 , वडोदरा

309

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (टी.डी.एस.), भप च

310

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (टी.डी.एस.), अणंद

311

कायाचलय ऄृर/ संयुि अयकर अयुि (टी.डी.एस.), सूरत

312

कायाचलय ईृ/ सिायक अयकर अयुि (टी.डी.एस.), सूरत

313

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (टी.डी.एस.)-1, सूरत

314

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (टी.डी.एस.)-2 , सूरत

315

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (टी.डी.एस.)-3 , सूरत

316

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (टी.डी.एस.), वलसाड

317

कायाचलय मु्‍य अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.), ऄिमदाबाद

318

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (मु.), मु्‍य अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.), कायाचलय,ऄिमदाबाद

319

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1, ऄिमदाबाद

320

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.), प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) कायाचलय(जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1,

ऄिमदाबाद

321

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1), ऄिमदाबाद

322

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

323

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

324

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

325

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

326

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

327

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

328

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2), ऄिमदाबाद

329

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

330

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

331

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

332

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

333

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

334

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

335

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3), ऄिमदाबाद

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1791

336

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

337

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

338

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

339

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

340

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

341

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

342

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4), ऄिमदाबाद

343

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

344

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

345

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

346

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

347

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

348

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

349

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.), (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2, ऄिमदाबाद

350

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.),प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) कायाचलय(जनधाचरण आकाइ)-

2,ऄिमदाबाद

351

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 2(1), ऄिमदाबाद

352

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायकअयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 2(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

353

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(1)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

354

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(1)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

355

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(1)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

356

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(1)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

357

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(1)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

358

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(2) ऄिमदाबाद

359

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 2(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

360

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(2)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

361

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

362

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(2)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

363

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(2)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

364

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(2)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

365

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 2(3), ऄिमदाबाद

366

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 2(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

367

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(3)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

368

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(3)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

369

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(3)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

370

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(3)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

371

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(3)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

372

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 2(4), ऄिमदाबाद

373

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 2(4)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

374

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(4)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

1792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

375

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(4)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

376

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(4)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

377

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(4)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

378

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-2(4)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

379

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.), (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3, ऄिमदाबाद

380

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.) प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)कायाचलय(जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3,

ऄिमदाबाद

381

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 3(1), ऄिमदाबाद

382

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 3(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

383

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(1)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

384

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(1)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

385

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(1)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

386

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(1)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

387

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(1)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

388

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(2) ऄिमदाबाद

389

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 3(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

390

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(2)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

391

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

392

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(2)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

393

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(2)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

394

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(2)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

395

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 3(3), ऄिमदाबाद

396

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 3(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

397

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(3)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

398

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(3)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

399

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(3)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

400

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(3)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

401

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(3)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

402

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 3(4), ऄिमदाबाद

403

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 3(4)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

404

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(4)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

405

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(4)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

406

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(4)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

407

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(4)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

408

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-3(4)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

409

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4, ऄिमदाबाद

410

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (मु.),प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)कायाचलय(जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4,

ऄिमदाबाद

411

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 4(1), ऄिमदाबाद

412

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 4(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1793

413

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(1)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

414

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(1)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

415

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(1)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

416

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(1)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

417

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(1)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

418

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(2) ऄिमदाबाद

419

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 4(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

420

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(2)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

421

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

422

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(2)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

423

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(2)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

424

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(2)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

425

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 4(3), ऄिमदाबाद

426

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 4(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

427

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(3)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

428

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(3)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

429

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(3)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

430

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(3)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

431

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(3)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

432

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 4(4), ऄिमदाबाद

433

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 4(4)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

434

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(4)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

435

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(4)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

436

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(4)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

437

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(4)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

438

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-4(4)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

439

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5, ऄिमदाबाद

440

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.)प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)कायाचलय(जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5, ऄिमदाबाद

441

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 5(1), ऄिमदाबाद

442

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 5(1)(1) ऄिमदाबाद

443

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(1)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

444

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(1)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

445

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(1)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

446

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(1)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

447

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(1)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

448

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुिअयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 5(2), ऄिमदाबाद

449

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 5(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

450

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(2)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

451

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

452

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(2)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

1794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

453

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(2)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

454

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(2)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

455

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 5(3), ऄिमदाबाद

456

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 5(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

457

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(3)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

458

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(3)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

459

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(3)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

460

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(3)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

461

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(3)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

462

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 5(4), ऄिमदाबाद

463

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 5(4)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

464

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(4)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

465

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(4)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

466

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(4)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

467

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(4)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

468

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-5(4)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

469

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1, ऄिमदाबाद

470

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.),प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)कायाचलय(सत्याृन आकाइ)-1 ऄिमदाबाद

471

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुिअयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(1), ऄिमदाबाद

472

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

473

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

474

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

475

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

476

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

477

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

478

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(2), ऄिमदाबाद

479

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

480

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

481

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

482

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

483

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

484

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

485

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(3), ऄिमदाबाद

486

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

487

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

488

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

489

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

490

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

491

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(6), ऄिमदाबाद

492

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1, ऄिमदाबाद

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1795

493

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.),प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)कायाचलय(ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-

1,ऄिमदाबाद

494

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(1), ऄिमदाबाद

495

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

496

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(1)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

497

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(1)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

498

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(1)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

499

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(1)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

500

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2), ऄिमदाबाद

501

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

502

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

503

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

504

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

505

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

506

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(3), ऄिमदाबाद

507

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), ऄिमदाबाद

508

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(2), ऄिमदाबाद

509

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(3), ऄिमदाबाद

510

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(4), ऄिमदाबाद

511

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(5), ऄिमदाबाद

512

कायाचलय मु्‍य अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.), वडोदरा

513

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (मु.), मु्‍य अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.),कायाचलय वडोदरा

514

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1, गांधीनगर

515

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.), प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)कायाचलय(जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1,गांधीनगर

516

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1), गांधीनगर

517

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), गांधीनगर

518

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(2), गांधीनगर

519

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(3), गांधीनगर

520

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(4), गांधीनगर

521

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(5), गांधीनगर

522

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(6), गांधीनगर

523

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2), गांधीनगर

524

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), गांधीनगर

525

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(2), गांधीनगर

526

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(3), गांधीनगर

527

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(4), गांधीनगर

528

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(5), गांधीनगर

529

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(6), गांधीनगर

530

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3), गांधीनगर

531

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), गांधीनगर

1796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

532

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(2), गांधीनगर

533

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(3), गांधीनगर

534

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(4), गांधीनगर

535

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(5), गांधीनगर

536

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(6), गांधीनगर

537

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4), गांधीनगर

538

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4)(1), गांधीनगर

539

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(2), गांधीनगर

540

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(3), गांधीनगर

541

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(4), गांधीनगर

542

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(5), गांधीनगर

543

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(6), गांधीनगर

544

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1, राजकोट

545

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.),प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)कायाचलय(जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1,राजकोट

546

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1), राजकोट

547

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), राजकोट

548

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(2), राजकोट

549

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(3), राजकोट

550

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(4), राजकोट

551

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(5), राजकोट

552

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(6), राजकोट

553

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2), राजकोट

554

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), राजकोट

555

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(2), राजकोट

556

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(3), राजकोट

557

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(4), राजकोट

558

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(5), राजकोट

559

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(6), राजकोट

560

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3), राजकोट

561

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), राजकोट

562

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(2), राजकोट

563

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(3), राजकोट

564

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(4), राजकोट

565

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(5), राजकोट

566

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(6), राजकोट

567

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4), राजकोट

568

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4)(1), राजकोट

569

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(2), राजकोट

570

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(3), राजकोट

571

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(4), राजकोट

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1797

572

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(5), राजकोट

573

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(6), राजकोट

574

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1, सूरत

575

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (मु.), प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)कायाचलय (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1, सूरत

576

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1), सूरत

577

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), सूरत

578

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(2), सूरत

579

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(3), सूरत

580

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(4), सूरत

581

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(5), सूरत

582

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(6), सूरत

583

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2), सूरत

584

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), सूरत

585

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(2), सूरत

586

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(3), सूरत

587

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(4), सूरत

588

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(5), सूरत

589

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(6), सूरत

590

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3), सूरत

591

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), सूरत

592

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(2), सूरत

593

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(3), सूरत

594

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(4), सूरत

595

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(5), सूरत

596

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(6), सूरत

597

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4), सूरत

598

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4)(1), सूरत

599

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(2), सूरत

600

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(3), सूरत

601

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(4), सूरत

602

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(5), सूरत

603

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(6), सूरत

604

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1, वडोदरा

605

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.),प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) कायाचलय(जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1,वडोदरा

606

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1), वडोदरा

607

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), वडोदरा

608

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(2), वडोदरा

609

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(3), वडोदरा

610

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(4), वडोदरा

611

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(5), वडोदरा

1798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

612

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(1)(6), वडोदरा

613

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2), वडोदरा

614

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), वडोदरा

615

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(2), वडोदरा

616

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(3), वडोदरा

617

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(4), वडोदरा

618

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(2)(5), वडोदरा

619

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(2)(6), वडोदरा

620

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3), वडोदरा

621

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), वडोदरा

622

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(2), वडोदरा

623

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(3), वडोदरा

624

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(4), वडोदरा

625

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(5), वडोदरा

626

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(3)(6), वडोदरा

627

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4), वडोदरा

628

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)- 1(4)(1), वडोदरा

629

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(2), वडोदरा

630

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(3), वडोदरा

631

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(4), वडोदरा

632

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(5), वडोदरा

633

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (जनधाचरण आकाइ)-1(4)(6), वडोदरा

634

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(सत्याृन आकाइ)-1, सूरत

635

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.),प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) कायाचलय(सत्याृन आकाइ)-1,सूरत

636

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(1), सूरत

637

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), सूरत

638

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(2), सूरत

639

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(3), सूरत

640

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(4), सूरत

641

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(5), सूरत

642

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(1)(6), सूरत

643

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(2), सूरत

644

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), सूरत

645

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(2), सूरत

646

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(3), सूरत

647

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(4), सूरत

648

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(5), सूरत

649

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(2)(6), सूरत

650

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(3), सूरत

651

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), सूरत

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1799

652

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(2), सूरत

653

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(3), सूरत

654

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(4), सूरत

655

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(5), सूरत

656

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (सत्याृन आकाइ)-1(3)(6), सूरत

657

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1, वडोदरा

658

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(मु.),प्रधान अयकर अयुि(क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) कायाचलय (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1

वडोदरा

659

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(1), वडोदरा

660

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(1)(1), वडोदरा

661

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(1)(2), वडोदरा

662

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(1)(3), वडोदरा

663

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(1)(4), वडोदरा

664

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(1)(5), वडोदरा

665

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2), वडोदरा

666

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(1), वडोदरा

667

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(2), वडोदरा

668

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(3), वडोदरा

669

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(4), वडोदरा

670

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(2)(5), वडोदरा

671

कायाचलय ऄृर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)-1(3), वडोदरा

672

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(1), वडोदरा

673

कायाचलय ईृ/सिायक अयकर अयुि (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(2), वडोदरा

674

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(3), वडोदरा

675

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(4), वडोदरा

676

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.) (ृुनर्षवलोकन आकाइ)- 1(3)(5), वडोदरा

677

कायाचलय अयकर मिाजनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), ऄिमदाबाद

678

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.) (मु.), ऄिमदाबाद

679

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.) (मु.)-1, ऄिमदाबाद

680

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.) (मु.)-2, ऄिमदाबाद

681

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.) (मु.), ऄिमदाबाद

682

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(ओ.एस.डी.) (ऄन्वे.) , ऄिमदाबाद

683

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), ऄिमदाबाद

684

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.) (मु.), ऄिमदाबाद

685

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.) (तकनीकी), ऄिमदाबाद

कायाचलय यूजनट-1 ऄिमदाबाद

686

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-1 ऄिमदाबाद

687

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-1(1) ऄिमदाबाद

688

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-1(2) ऄिमदाबाद

689

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-1(3) ऄिमदाबाद

1800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

690

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.) भावनगर

691

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.) यूजनट-1 ऄिमदाबाद

कायाचलय यूजनट-2 ऄिमदाबाद

692

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-2, ऄिमदाबाद

693

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-2(1), ऄिमदाबाद

694

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-2(2), ऄिमदाबाद

695

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-2(3) एवं ए. अइ. यू. ऄिमदाबाद

696

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.) मेिसाणा

697

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.) यूजनट-2 एवं ए.अइ.यू. ऄिमदाबाद

कायाचलय राजकोट यूजनट

698

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), राजकोट

699

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), 1, राजकोट

700

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), 2, राजकोट

701

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), जामनगर

702

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), गांधीधाम

703

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.), राजकोट

कायाचलय एफ. ए. अइ. यू., ऄिमदाबाद

704

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), एफ. ए. अइ. यू., ऄिमदाबाद

705

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), एफ. ए. अइ. यू., ऄिमदाबाद

706

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.), एफ. ए. अइ. यू., ऄिमदाबाद

कायाचलय बी. ृी. यू., ऄिमदाबाद

707

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर अयुि (बीृीयू), ऄिमदाबाद

708

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि (बीृीयू), ऄिमदाबाद

709

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (बीृीयू), ऄिमदाबाद

710

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (बीृीयू) (ओ.एस.डी.), ऄिमदाबाद

711

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), सूरत

712

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.)(मु.) सूरत

713

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.) (तकनीकी), सूरत

कायाचलय सूरत यूजनट

714

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), सूरत

715

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-1, सूरत

716

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-2, सूरत

717

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-3, सूरत

718

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-4, सूरत

719

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.), सूरत

कायाचलय वाृी यूजनट

720

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), वाृी

721

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-1, वाृी

722

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट-2, वाृी

723

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट, नवसारी

724

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), यूजनट, वलसाड

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1801

725

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.), वाृी

कायाचलय वडोदरा यूजनट

726

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), वडोदरा

727

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), 1, वडोदरा

728

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), 2, वडोदरा

729

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), भप च

730

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), गोधरा

731

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.), वडोदरा

732

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.), अनंद

कायाचलय एफ. ए. अइ. यू., सूरत

733

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), एफ. ए. अइ. यू., सूरत

734

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), एफ. ए. अइ. यू., सूरत

735

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (ऄन्वे.), एफ. ए. अइ. यू., सूरत

कायाचलय बी. ृी. यू., सूरत

736

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर जनदेिक (बीृीयू), सूरत

737

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर जनदेिक (बीृीयू), सूरत

738

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (बीृीयू), सूरत

739

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (केंरीय), ऄिमदाबाद

740

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि (मु.) (केंरीय), ऄिमदाबाद

741

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (तकनीकी) (केंरीय), ऄिमदाबाद

742

कायाचलय कर वसूली ऄजधकारी (केंरीय), ऄिमदाबाद

कायाचलय केंरीय रेंज-1, ऄिमदाबाद

743

कायाचलय ऄृर अयकर अयुि केंरीय रेंज-1, ऄिमदाबाद

744

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -1(1), ऄिमदाबाद

745

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -1(2), ऄिमदाबाद

746

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -1(3), ऄिमदाबाद

747

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -1(4), ऄिमदाबाद

कायाचलय केंरीय रेंज-2, ऄिमदाबाद

748

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर अयुि केंरीय रेंज-2, ऄिमदाबाद

749

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -2(1), ऄिमदाबाद

750

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -2(2), ऄिमदाबाद

751

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -2(3), ऄिमदाबाद

752

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -2(4), ऄिमदाबाद

कायाचलय केंरीय रेंज, राजकोट

753

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर अयुि केंरीय रेंज, राजकोट

754

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -1, राजकोट

755

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -2, राजकोट

756

कायाचलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि (के.), सूरत

757

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि (मु.) (के.), सूरत

758

कायाचलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (तकनीकी) (के.), सूरत

1802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

759

कायाचलय कर वसूली ऄजधकारी (के.), सूरत

कायाचलय केंरीय रेंज, सूरत

760

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर अयुि केंरीय रेंज-1, सूरत

761

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -1, सूरत

762

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -2, सूरत

763

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -3 , सूरत

764

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -4, सूरत

कायाचलय केंरीय रेंज, वडोदरा

765

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर अयुि केंरीय रेंज, वडोदरा

766

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल-1, वडोदरा

767

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल-2, वडोदरा

768

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल-3, वडोदरा

769

कायाचलय ईृ अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल गोधरा

कायाचलय केंरीय रेंज, वाृी

770

कायाचलय संयुि अयकर अयुि केंरीय रेंज, वाृी

771

कायाचलय सिायक अयकर अयुि केंरीय सकचल -1, वाृी

772

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि (ऄृील)-11, ऄिमदाबाद

773

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि (ऄृील)-12, ऄिमदाबाद

774

कायाचलय अयकर अयुि (ऄृील)-4, सूरत

[फा. सं. इ-30018/1/2024- डीडीओएल]

जिजिर िमाच, संयुक् त जनदेिक (राजभािा)

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2025

S.O. 741.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Central Borad Direct

Taxes Department of revenue where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:—

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD

Sl. No.

Name of the Office

1

O/o The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad

2

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (Admn. & TPS), Ahmedabad

3

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ)(Admn.), Ahmedabad

4

O/o The Deputy/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ)(Admn.), Ahmedabad

5

O/o The Deputy/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ)(Estate), Ahmedabad

6

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (HQ)(Admn.), Ahmedabad

7

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (PRO.), Ahmedabad

8

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (Welfare), Ahmedabad

9

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ)(Personnel), Ahmedabad

10

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ)(Personnel), Ahmedabad

11

O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)(Personnel), Ahmedabad

12

Income-tax Officer (MSTU), Ahmedabad

13

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ)(Coord. & TPS), Ahmedabad

14

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ)(Coord. & TPS), Ahmedabad

15

O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)(Coord), Ahmedabad

16

O/o The Income-tax Officer (SWCC & TPS), Ahmedabad

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1803

17

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (CO), Ahmedabad

18

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (CO), Ahmedabad

19

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (System), Ahmedabad

20

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (System), Ahmedabad

21

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (Judicial), Ahmedabad

22

O/o The Addl/Joint CIT(HQ)(Judicial),Ahmedabad

23

O/o The DCIT/ACIT(HQ)(Judicial),Ahmedabad

24

O/o The ITO(HQ)(Judicial), Ahmedabad

25

O/o The ITO(HQ)(Judicial – 1), Ahmedabad

26

O/o The ITO(HQ)(OSD-)(Judicial),Ahmedabad

27

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (Audit), Ahmedabad

28

O/o The Income tax Officer(HQ)(AUDIT),Ahmedabad

29

O/o The Addl./Joint CIT(HQ)(AUDIT),Ahmedabad

30

O/o The Joint CIT(OSD)(HQ)(AUDIT)(SAP),Ahmedabad

31

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-1,Ahmedabad

32

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-2,Ahmedabad

33

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-3,Ahmedabad

34

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-4,Ahmedabad

35

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-5,Ahmedabad

36

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-6,Ahmedabad

37

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-7,Ahmedabad

38

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-Gandhinagar

39

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-1,Vadodara

40

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-2,Vadodara

41

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-3,Vadodara

42

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-4,Vadodara

43

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-1, Rajkot

44

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-2, Rajkot

45

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP)-3, Rajkot

46

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP), Jamnagar

47

O/o The Income tax Officer (Audit) (IAP)-1, Surat

48

O/o The Income tax Officer (Audit) (IAP)-2, Surat

49

O/o The Income tax Officer (Audit) (IAP)-3, Surat

50

O/o The Income tax Officer(IAP), Valsad

51

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (DR)(ITAT)-1, Ahmedabad

52

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(ITAT)-1(1), Ahmedabad

53

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (ITAT)-1(1), Ahmedabad

54

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (DR)(ITAT)-2, Ahmedabad

55

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(ITAT)-2(1), Ahmedabad

56

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (ITAT)-2(1), Ahmedabad

57

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (DR)(ITAT)-3 , Ahmedabad

58

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(ITAT)-3(1), Ahmedabad

59

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (ITAT)-3(1), Ahmedabad

60

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (DR)(ITAT)-4, Ahmedabad

61

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(ITAT)-4(1), Ahmedabad

62

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (ITAT)-4(1), Ahmedabad

63

O/o The SMC Bench, Ahmedabad

1804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

64

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (ITAT-1(1), Ahmedabad

65

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT)(HQ) & Admn, Ahmedabad

66

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax, ITAT-3(1), Ahmedabad

67

O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(ITAT)-1(1), Ahmedabad

68

O/o The Income-tax Officer, (ITAT)-3(1), Ahmedabad

69

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

70

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption)(HQ),Ahmedabad

71

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption)(HQ),Ahmedabad

72

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption)(TRO),Ahmedabad

O/o The (Exemption), Range-1, Ahmedabad

73

O/o The Addl./Joint CIT(Exemption),Range-1,Ahmedabad

74

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption),Circle-1,Ahmedabad

75

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption),Ward-1,Ahmedabad

76

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption),Ward-2,Ahmedabad

77

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption),Palanpur Ward

78

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption),Bhavnagar Ward

O/o The (Exemption), Range-2, Ahmedabad

79

O/o The Addl./Joint CIT(Exemption),Range-2,Ahmedabad

80

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption),Circle-2,Ahmedabad

81

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption)Vadodara Ward

82

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption)-1, Rajkot Ward

83

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption)-2, Rajkot Ward

84

O/o The Income-tax Officer(Exemption)Surat Ward

85

O/o The Director of Income-Tax(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Ahmedabad

86

O/o The Income-Tax Officer(HQ)(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Ahmedabad

87

O/o The Addll./Jt. Director of Income-Tax(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Ahmedabad

88

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Director of Income-Tax(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Ahmedabad

89

O/o The Income-Tax Officer(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation)-1, Ahmedabad

90

O/o The Income-Tax Officer(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation)-2, Ahmedabad

91

O/o The AO & DDO(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Ahmedabad

92

O/o The Income-Tax Officer & DDO (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Vadodara

93

O/o The Income-Tax Officer(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Bharuch

94

O/o The Income-Tax Officer & DDO (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Rajkot

95

O/o The Income-Tax Officer(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Jamnagar

96

O/o The Deputy/Assistant Director of Income-Tax(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Surat

97

O/o The Income-Tax Officer & DDO (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Surat

98

O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax-(International Taxation & Transfer Pricing), Ahmedabad

99

O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (TP), Ahmedabad

100 O/o The DCIT(TP) - 1, Ahmedabad

101 O/o The DCIT(TP) - 2, Ahmedabad

102 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (IT), Ahmedabad

103 O/o The ITO(IT&TP), Ahmedabad

104 O/o The DCIT(IT) - 1, Ahmedabad

105 O/o The DCIT(IT) - 2, Ahmedabad

106 O/o The ITO(IT) - 1, Ahmedabad

107 O/o The ITO(IT) - 2, Ahmedabad

108 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (IT),Vadodara

109 O/o The DCIT(IT), Vadodara

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1805

110 O/o The DCIT(IT), Rajkot

111 O/o The ITO(IT),Surat

112 O/o The ITO(IT),Gandhidham

113 O/o The ITO(HQ)IT&TP,Ahmedabad

114 O/o The ITO(Tech.)(IT),Ahmedabad

115 O/o The ITO,TRO,Ahmedabad

116 O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Ahmedabad

117 O/o The Income-tax Officer(Tech)-1, Ahmedabad

118 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Ahmedabad

119 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Spl. Range-1, Ahmedabad

120 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-1(1), Ahmedabad

121 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

122 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

123 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

124 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

125 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

126 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

127 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-2(1), Ahmedabad

128 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

129 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

130 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

131 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

132 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Himatnagar

133 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Modasa

134 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-1, Bhavnagar

135 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1, Bhavnagar

136 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

137 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

138 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

139 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

140 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(10), Bhavnagar

141 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Ahmedabad

142 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward(HQ)-3, Ahmedabad

143 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward(Tech)-3, Ahmedabad

144 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-3(1), Ahmedabad

145 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

146 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

147 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

148 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

149 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

150 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

151 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-4(1), Ahmedabad

152 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

153 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

154 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

155 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

156 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Surendranagar

1806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

157 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2, Surendranagar

158 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range, Gandhinagar

159 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle, Gandhinagar

160 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Gandhinagar

161 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Palanpur

162 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Patan

163 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Mehsana

164 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-5, Mehsana

165 O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot

166 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-1, CCIT, Rajkot

167 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-2, CCIT, Rajkot

168 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Rajkot

169 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-1, Rajkot

170 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-2, Rajkot

171 O/o The Tax Recovery Officer-1, Rajkot

172 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-1(1), Rajkot

173 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1(1), Rajkot

174 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

175 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

176 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Junagadh

177 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-4, Junagadh, Veraval

178 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Morbi

179 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-2(1), Rajkot

180 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-2(1), Rajkot

181 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle, Gandhidham

182 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot

183 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1), Rajkot

184 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(2)(3), Rajkot

185 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot

186 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli

187 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Gandhidham

188 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2, Gandhidham

189 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3, Gandhidham (Bhuj-1)

190 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-4, Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)

191 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-5, Gandhidham (Mundra)

192 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Jamnagar

193 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-1, Jamnagar

194 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-2, Jamnagar

195 O/o The Tax Recovery Officer, Jamnagar

196 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range, Jamnagar

197 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1, Jamnagar

198 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-2(1), Jamnagar

199 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2), Jamnagar

200 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jamnagar

201 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(5), Jamnagar

202 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(1), Jamnagar

203 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(6), Jamnagar

204 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(10), Jamnagar

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1807

205 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(3), Porbandar

206 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(4), Porbandar

207 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(4), Dwarka

208 O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat

209 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-1, CCIT, Surat

210 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-2, CCIT, Surat

211 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Surat

212 O/o The Income-tax Officer (Tech)-1, Surat

213 O/o The Tax Recovery Officer-1, Surat

214 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Spl. Range-1, Surat

215 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-1(1), Surat

216 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

217 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Surat

218 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

219 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

220 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

221 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

222 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-1(3), Surat

223 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1(3), Surat

224 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2)(6), Surat

225 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

226 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(3)(6), Surat

227 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(2)(6), Surat

228 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Bardoli

229 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-2(1), Surat

230 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

231 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(1)(1), Surat

232 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(1)(3), Surat

233 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1), Surat

234 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Surat

235 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

236 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Vadodara

237 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ)-1, Vadodara

238 O/o The Tax Recovery Officer-1, Vadodara

239 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Spl. Range-1, Vadodara

240 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-1(1), Vadodara

241 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

242 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Vadodara

243 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

244 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

245 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

246 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

247 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-2(1), Vadodara

248 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-2(1), Vadodara

249 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Anand Circle, Anand

250 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(1)(1), Vadodara

251 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

1808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

252 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

253 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bharuch

254 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bharuch

255 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Nadiad

256 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Anand

257 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Dahod

258 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Godhra

259 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Lunawada

260 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Valsad

261 O/o The Income-tax Officer (Tech), Valsad

262 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Valsad

263 O/o The Tax Recovery Officer, Valsad

264 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range, Navsari

265 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Navsari Circle, Navsari

266 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Navsari

267 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2, Navsari

268 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3, Navsari

269 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-4, Navsari

270 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-5, Navsari

271 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range, Valsad

272 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Valsad Circle, Valsad

273 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vapi Circle, Vapi

274 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Valsad

275 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-2, Valsad

276 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-3, Valsad

277 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-4, Valsad

278 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-5, Valsad

279 O/o The Income-tax Officer Daman Ward, Daman

280 O/o The Income-tax Officer Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

281 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Vapi

282 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-5, Vapi

283 O/o The Income-tax Officer Ward-7, Vapi

284 O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income tax (TDS), Ahmedabad

285 O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income tax(HQ)(TDS), Ahmedabad

286 O/o The Income tax Officer (HQ)(TDS), Ahmedabad

287 O/o The Administrative Officer and DDO(HQ)(TDS), Ahmedabad

288 O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (TDS), Ahmedabad

289 O/o The Income tax officer (HQ)(TDS), Ahmedabad

290 O/o The Income tax officer (Tech)(TDS), Ahmedabad

291 O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income tax(TDS)-Range, Ahmedabad

292 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax(TDS)-Circle, Ahmedabad

293 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Ward-1, Ahmedabad

294 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Ward-2, Ahmedabad

295 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Ward-3, Ahmedabad

296 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Ward, Gandhinagar

297 O/o The AO& DDO(TDS)-Range, Ahmedabad

298 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income tax(TDS) Range, Rajkot

299 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax(TDS)-Circle, Rajkot

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1809

300 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Ward-1, Rajkot & DDO(TDS), Rajkot

301 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Ward-2, Rajkot

302 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Ward-3, Jamnagar

303 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Ward-4, Gandhidham

304 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(TDS), Vadodara

305 O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income tax(TDS), Vadodara

306 O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(TDS), Vadodara

307 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS)-1, Vadodara

308 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS)-2, Vadodara

309 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Bharuch

310 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Anand

311 O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income tax (TDS), Surat

312 O/o The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(TDS), Surat

313 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS)-1, Surat

314 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS)-2, Surat

315 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS)-3, Surat

316 O/o The Income tax Officer(TDS), Valsad

317 O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC), Ahmedabad

318 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC),

Ahmedabad

319 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1, Ahmedabad

320 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ) Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-1, Ahmedabad

321 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1),

Ahmedabad

322 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

323 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

324 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

325 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

326 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(5), Ahmedabad

327 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(6), Ahmedabad

328 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2),

Ahmedabad

329 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

330 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

331 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

332 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

333 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(5), Ahmedabad

334 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(6), Ahmedabad

335 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3),

Ahmedabad

336 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

337 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

338 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(3), Ahmedabad

339 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(4), Ahmedabad

340 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

341 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(6), Ahmedabad

342 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4),

Ahmedabad

1810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

343 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4)(1), Ahmedabad

344 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(2), Ahmedabad

345 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(3), Ahmedabad

346 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(4), Ahmedabad

347 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(5), Ahmedabad

348 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(6), Ahmedabad

349 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC), (Assessment Unit)-2, Ahmedabad

350 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-2, Ahmedabad

351 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 2(1),

Ahmedabad

352 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

353 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

354 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

355 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

356 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(1)(5), Ahmedabad

357 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(1)(6), Ahmedabad

358 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(2)

Ahmedabad

359 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

360 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(2)(2), Ahmedabad

361 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(2)(3), Ahmedabad

362 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad

363 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(2)(5), Ahmedabad

364 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(2)(6), Ahmedabad

365 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 2(3),

Ahmedabad

366 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 2(3)(1), Ahmedabad

367 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(3)(2), Ahmedabad

368 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(3)(3), Ahmedabad

369 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(3)(4), Ahmedabad

370 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(3)(5), Ahmedabad

371 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(3)(6), Ahmedabad

372 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 2(4),

Ahmedabad

373 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 2(4)(1), Ahmedabad

374 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(4)(2), Ahmedabad

375 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(4)(3), Ahmedabad

376 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(4)(4), Ahmedabad

377 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(4)(5), Ahmedabad

378 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-2(4)(6), Ahmedabad

379 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC), (Assessment Unit)-3, Ahmedabad

380 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-3, Ahmedabad

381 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 3(1),

Ahmedabad

382 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

383 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

384 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1811

385 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(1)(4), Ahmedabad

386 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(1)(5), Ahmedabad

387 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(1)(6), Ahmedabad

388 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(2)

Ahmedabad

389 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

390 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

391 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(2)(3), Ahmedabad

392 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad

393 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(2)(5), Ahmedabad

394 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(2)(6), Ahmedabad

395 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 3(3),

Ahmedabad

396 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

397 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

398 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

399 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

400 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

401 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(3)(6), Ahmedabad

402 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 3(4),

Ahmedabad

403 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 3(4)(1), Ahmedabad

404 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(4)(2), Ahmedabad

405 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(4)(3), Ahmedabad

406 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(4)(4), Ahmedabad

407 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(4)(5), Ahmedabad

408 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-3(4)(6), Ahmedabad

409 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4, Ahmedabad

410 O/o The Income- tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-4, Ahmedabad

411 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 4(1), Ahmedabad

412 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

413 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

414 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

415 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(1)(4), Ahmedabad

416 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(1)(5), Ahmedabad

417 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(1)(6), Ahmedabad

418 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(2)

Ahmedabad

419 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

420 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

421 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

422 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(2)(4), Ahmedabad

423 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(2)(5), Ahmedabad

424 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(2)(6), Ahmedabad

425 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 4(3),

Ahmedabad

426 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 4(3)(1), Ahmedabad

427 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(3)(2), Ahmedabad

1812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

428 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(3)(3), Ahmedabad

429 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(3)(4), Ahmedabad

430 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(3)(5), Ahmedabad

431 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(3)(6), Ahmedabad

432 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 4(4),

Ahmedabad

433 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 4(4)(1), Ahmedabad

434 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(4)(2), Ahmedabad

435 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(4)(3), Ahmedabad

436 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(4)(4), Ahmedabad

437 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(4)(5), Ahmedabad

438 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-4(4)(6), Ahmedabad

439 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5, Ahmedabad

440 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ) Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-5, Ahmedabad

441 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 5(1),

Ahmedabad

442 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 5(1)(1) Ahmedabad

443 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

444 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(1)(3), Ahmedabad

445 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(1)(4), Ahmedabad

446 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(1)(5), Ahmedabad

447 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(1)(6), Ahmedabad

448 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 5(2),

Ahmedabad

449 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

450 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

451 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

452 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

453 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

454 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(2)(6), Ahmedabad

455 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 5(3),

Ahmedabad

456 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

457 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

458 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

459 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

460 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

461 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(3)(6), Ahmedabad

462 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 5(4),

Ahmedabad

463 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 5(4)(1), Ahmedabad

464 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(4)(2), Ahmedabad

465 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(4)(3), Ahmedabad

466 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(4)(4), Ahmedabad

467 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(4)(5), Ahmedabad

468 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-5(4)(6), Ahmedabad

469 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1, Ahmedabad

470 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1813

(Verification Unit)-1, Ahmedabad

471 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(1),

Ahmedabad

472 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(1)(1),

Ahmedabad

473 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

474 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

475 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

476 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(5), Ahmedabad

477 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(6), Ahmedabad

478 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(2),

Ahmedabad

479 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(2)(1),

Ahmedabad

480 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

481 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

482 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

483 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(5), Ahmedabad

484 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(6), Ahmedabad

485 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(3),

Ahmedabad

486 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(3)(1),

Ahmedabad

487 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

488 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(3), Ahmedabad

489 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(4), Ahmedabad

490 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

491 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(6), Ahmedabad

492 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1, Ahmedabad

493 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Review Unit)-1, Ahmedabad

494 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(1), Ahmedabad

495 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

496 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

497 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

498 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

499 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(1)(5), Ahmedabad

500 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2), Ahmedabad

501 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

502 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

503 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

504 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

505 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(5), Ahmedabad

506 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(3), Ahmedabad

507 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

508 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

509 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(3), Ahmedabad

510 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(4), Ahmedabad

511 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

1814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

512 O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC), Vadodara

513 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC), Vadodara

514 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1, Gandhinagar

515 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-1, Gandhinagar

516 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1),

Gandhinagar

517 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1)(1),

Gandhinagar

518 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(2), Gandhinagar

519 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(3), Gandhinagar

520 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(4), Gandhinagar

521 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(5), Gandhinagar

522 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(6), Gandhinagar

523 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2),

Gandhinagar

524 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(1),

Gandhinagar

525 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(2), Gandhinagar

526 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(3), Gandhinagar

527 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(4), Gandhinagar

528 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(5), Gandhinagar

529 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(6), Gandhinagar

530 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3),

Gandhinagar

531 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3)(1),

Gandhinagar

532 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(2), Gandhinagar

533 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(3), Gandhinagar

534 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(4), Gandhinagar

535 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(5), Gandhinagar

536 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(6), Gandhinagar

537 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4),

Gandhinagar

538 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4)(1),

Gandhinagar

539 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(2), Gandhinagar

540 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(3), Gandhinagar

541 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(4), Gandhinagar

542 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(5), Gandhinagar

543 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(6), Gandhinagar

544 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1, Rajkot

545 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-1, Rajkot

546 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1), Rajkot

547 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1)(1), Rajkot

548 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(2), Rajkot

549 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(3), Rajkot

550 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(4), Rajkot

551 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(5), Rajkot

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1815

552 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(6), Rajkot

553 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2), Rajkot

554 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(1), Rajkot

555 O/o The ncome-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(2), Rajkot

556 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(3), Rajkot

557 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(4), Rajkot

558 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(5), Rajkot

559 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(6), Rajkot

560 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3), Rajkot

561 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3)(1), Rajkot

562 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(2), Rajkot

563 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(3), Rajkot

564 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(4), Rajkot

565 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(5), Rajkot

566 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(6), Rajkot

567 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4), Rajkot

568 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4)(1), Rajkot

569 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(2), Rajkot

570 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(3), Rajkot

571 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(4), Rajkot

572 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(5), Rajkot

573 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(6), Rajkot

574 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1, Surat

575 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-1, Surat

576 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1), Surat

577 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1)(1), Surat

578 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(2), Surat

579 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(3), Surat

580 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(4), Surat

581 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(5), Surat

582 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(6), Surat

583 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2), Surat

584 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(1), Surat

585 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(2), Surat

586 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(3), Surat

587 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(4), Surat

588 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(5), Surat

589 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(6), Surat

590 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3), Surat

591 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3)(1), Surat

592 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(2), Surat

593 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(3), Surat

594 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(4), Surat

595 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(5), Surat

596 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(6), Surat

597 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4), Surat

598 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4)(1), Surat

1816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

599 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(2), Surat

600 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(3), Surat

601 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(4), Surat

602 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(5), Surat

603 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(6), Surat

604 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1, Vadodara

605 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Assessment Unit)-1, Vadodara

606 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1), Vadodara

607 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(1)(1), Vadodara

608 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(2), Vadodara

609 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(3), Vadodara

610 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(4), Vadodara

611 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(5), Vadodara

612 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(1)(6), Vadodara

613 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2), Vadodara

614 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(1), Vadodara

615 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(2), Vadodara

616 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(3), Vadodara

617 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(4), Vadodara

618 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(2)(5), Vadodara

619 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(2)(6), Vadodara

620 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3), Vadodara

621 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(3)(1), Vadodara

622 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(2), Vadodara

623 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(3), Vadodara

624 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(4), Vadodara

625 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(5), Vadodara

626 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(3)(6), Vadodara

627 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4), Vadodara

628 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)- 1(4)(1), Vadodara

629 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(2), Vadodara

630 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(3), Vadodara

631 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(4), Vadodara

632 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(5), Vadodara

633 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Assessment Unit)-1(4)(6), Vadodara

634 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)(Verification Unit)-1, Surat

635 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Verification Unit)-1, Surat

636 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)(Verification Unit)- 1(1), Surat

637 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)(Verification Unit)- 1(1)(1), Surat

638 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(2), Surat

639 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(3), Surat

640 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(4), Surat

641 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(5), Surat

642 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(1)(6), Surat

643 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(2), Surat

644 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(2)(1), Surat

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1817

645 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(2), Surat

646 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(3), Surat

647 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(4), Surat

648 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(5), Surat

649 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(2)(6), Surat

650 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(3), Surat

651 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)- 1(3)(1), Surat

652 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(2), Surat

653 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(3), Surat

654 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(4), Surat

655 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(5), Surat

656 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Verification Unit)-1(3)(6), Surat

657 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1, Vadodara

658 O/o The Income-tax Officer (HQ), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC)

(Review Unit)-1, Vadodara

659 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(1), Vadodara

660 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(1)(1), Vadodara

661 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(1)(2), Vadodara

662 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(1)(3), Vadodara

663 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(1)(4), Vadodara

664 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(1)(5), Vadodara

665 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2), Surat

666 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(1), Vadodara

667 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(2), Vadodara

668 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(3), Vadodara

669 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(4), Vadodara

670 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(2)(5), Vadodara

671 O/o The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)-1(3), Vadodara

672 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(1), Vadodara

673 O/o The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(2), Vadodara

674 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(3), Vadodara

675 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(4), Vadodara

676 O/o The Income-tax Officer (ReFAC) (Review Unit)- 1(3)(5), Vadodara

677 O/o The Director General of Income-tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad Charge

678 O/o The Additional Director of Income-tax (Inv.)(HQ), Ahmedabad

679 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.)(HQ)-1, Ahmedabad

680 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.)(HQ)-2, Ahmedabad

681 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.)(HQ), Ahmedabad

682 O/o The Income Tax Officer (OSD)(Inv.), Ahmedabad

683 O/o The Principal Director of Income-tax (Inv), Ahmedabad

684 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv)(HQ), Ahmedabad

685 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.)(Tech.), Ahmedabad

O/o The UNIT-1, AHMEDABAD

686 O/o The Additional Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Unit-1, Ahmedabad

687 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-1(1), Ahmedabad

688 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-1(2), Ahmedabad

689 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad

690 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Bhavnagar

1818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

691 O/o The Income Tax Officer, Unit-1, Ahmedabad

O/o The UNIT-2, AHMEDABAD

692 O/o The Joint Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Unit-2, Ahmedabad

693 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-2(1), Ahmedabad

694 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-2(2), Ahmedabad

695 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-2(3) & AIU, Ahmedabad

696 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Mehsana

697 O/o The Income Tax Officer, Unit-2 & AIU, Ahmedabad

O/o The RAJKOT UNIT

698 O/o The Joint Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Rajkot

699 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv)-1, Rajkot

700 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.)-2, Rajkot

701 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Jamnagar

702 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Gandhidham

703 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Rajkot

O/o The FOREIGN ASSET INVESTIGATION UNIT, AHMEDABAD

704 O/o The Additional Director of Income-tax (Inv.), FAIU, Ahmedabad

705 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), FAIU, Ahmedabad

706 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.), FAIU, Ahmedabad

O/o The BENAMI PROHIBITION UNIT, AHMEDABAD

707 O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (BPU), Ahmedabad

708 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (BPU), Ahmedabad

709 O/o The Income Tax Officer (BPU), Ahmedabad

710 O/o The Income Tax Officer (BPU)(OSD), Ahmedabad

711 O/o The Principal Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Surat

712 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.)(HQ) Surat

713 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.)(Tech.), Surat

O/o The SURAT UNIT

714 O/o The Additional Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Surat

715 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), UNIT-1, Surat

716 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), UNIT-2, Surat

717 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), UNIT-3, Surat

718 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax(Inv.), UNIT-4,Surat

719 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Surat

O/o The VAPI UNIT

720 O/o The Additional Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Vapi

721 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-1, Vapi

722 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-2, Vapi

723 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Unit, Navsari

724 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Unit, Valsad

725 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Vapi

O/o The VADODARA UNIT

726 O/o The Additional Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Vadodara

727 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.)-I, Vadodara

728 O/o The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.)-II, Vadodara

729 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Bharuch

730 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Godhra

731 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Vadodara

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1819

732 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Anand

O/o The FOREIGN ASSET INVESTIGATION UNIT, SURAT

733 O/o The Additional Director of Income-tax (Inv.), FAIU, Surat

734 O/o The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), FAIU, Surat

735 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Inv.), FAIU, Surat

O/o The BENAMI PROHIBITION UNIT, SURAT

736 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (BPU), Surat

737 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (BPU), Surat

738 O/o The Income Tax Officer (BPU), Surat

739 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ahmedabad

740 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ) (Central), Ahmedabad

741 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Tech.)(Central), Ahmedabad

742 O/o The Tax Recovery Officer (Central), Ahmedabad

O/o The CENTRAL RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

743 O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-1, Ahmedabad

744 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

745 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

746 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

747 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

O/o The CENTRAL RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD

748 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Ahmedabad

749 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

750 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

751 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad

752 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

O/o The CENTRAL RANGE, RAJKOT

753 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Rajkot

754 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1,Rajkot

755 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2,Rajkot

756 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Surat

757 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (HQ), (Central), Surat

758 O/o The Income Tax Officer (Tech.)(Central), Surat

759 O/o The TRO (Central), Surat

O/o The CNETRAL RANGE, SURAT

760 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-1, Surat

761 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Surat

762 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

763 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-3, Surat

764 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-4, Surat

O/o The CENTRAL RANGE, VADODARA

765 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Vadodara

766 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -1, Vadodara

767 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -2, Vadodara

768 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -3, Vadodara

769 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Godhra

O/o The CENTRAL RANGE, VAPI

770 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Vapi

1820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

771 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Vapi

772 O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad

773 O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad

774 O/o The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Surat

[F. No. E-30018/1/2024- DDOL]

IHSIHSIRIHSIHS, Jt. Director (OL)

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 5 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 742.—केन्र सरकार, राजभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय ऄप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क बोडच के ऄधीन जनम्नजलजखत

कायाचलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित से ऄजधक कमचाररयों ने जिन्दी का कायचसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को ऄजधसूजचत

करती िै:—

1. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर अयुिालय, मैसूप

2. मानव संसाधन जवकास प्रबंधन मिाजनदेिालय, साकेत, नइ ददल्ली

3. सीमा िुल्क अयुिालय, न्िावा िेवा (जनरल)

4. सीमा िुल्क अयुिालय, न्िावा िेवा-III

5. सीमा िुल्क अयुिालय, न्िावा िेवा-II

6. माल और सेवा कर मिाजनदेिालय, नइ ददल्ली

7. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर अयुिालय, जम्पमू

8. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर अयुिालय, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

9. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर, मंडल-I, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

10. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर, मंडल-II, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

11. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर, मंडल-III, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

12. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर, मंडल-IV, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

13. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर, मंडल-V, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

14. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर, मंडल-VI, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

15. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर, मंडल-VII, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

16. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर, मंडल-VIII, ऄिमदाबाद दजक्षण

[फा. सं. इ-11017/3/2017- जिन्दी-2-ऄजधसूचना]

जिजिर िमाच, संयुक् त जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2025

S.O. 742.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Central Board of Indirect Taxes

and Customs, Department of revenue where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:—

1. Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Mysuru

2. Directorate General of Human Resource Management, Saket, New Delhi

3. Commissionerate of Customs, Nhava Sheva (General)

4. Commissionerate of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1821

5. Commissionerate of Customs, Nhava Sheva-II

6. Directorate General of Goods & Service tax, New Delhi

7. Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Jammu

8. Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Ahmedabad South

9. Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-I, Ahmedabad South

10. Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-II, Ahmedabad South

11. Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-III, Ahmedabad South

12. Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-IV, Ahmedabad South

13. Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-V, Ahmedabad South

14. Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-VI, Ahmedabad South

15. Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-VII, Ahmedabad South

16. Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-VIII, Ahmedabad South

[F.No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-II-Notification]

SHISHIR SHARMA, Jt. Director (OL)

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 6 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 743.—बीमांकक ऄजधजनयम, 2006 (2006 का 35) की धारा 26 की ईृ-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों

का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा श्री डी. वरदराजन, ऄजधविा के स्ट्थान ृर श्री जनिार एन. जंबूसररया,

भूतृूवच ऄध्यक्ष, अइसीएअइ को तत्काल प्रभाव से तीन विच की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो,

भारतीय बीमांकक संस्ट्थान ृररिद द्वारा गर त ऄनुिासनात्मक सजमजत के सदस्ट्य के प ृ में नाजमत करती िै।

[फा.सं. एम-16013/01/2024-बीमा-I]

ऄब्दुल गुफरान, ऄवर सजचव

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2025

S.O. 743.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Actuaries Act, 2006 (35 of

2006), the Central Government, hereby nominates Sh. Nihar N. Jambusaria, former President, ICAI as a member of

the Disciplinary Committee constituted by the Council of the Institute of Actuaries of India vice Sh. D. Varadarajan,

Advocate, with immediate effect for a period of three years or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. M-16013/01/2024-Ins.-I]

ABDUL GUFRAN, Under Secy.

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 6 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 744.—केन्र सरकार, राजभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10 के

ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय ऄप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क बोडच के ऄधीन केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर

अयुिालय, बेंगलुर ईत्तर ृजिम कायाचलय, जजनके 80 प्रजतित से ऄजधक कमचाररयों ने जिन्दी का कायचसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर

जलया िै, को ऄजधसूजचत करती िै।

[फा. सं. इ-11017/3/2017- जिन्दी-2-ऄजधसूचना]

जिजिर िमाच, संयुक् त जनदेिक (रा.भा.)]

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2025

S.O. 744.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the Central Goods & Service Tax, Bengaluru north

West Commissionerate office under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of revenue where

more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-II-Notification]

SHISHIR SHARMA, Jt. Director (OL)

1822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कार्षमक, लोक जिकायत तथा ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्षमक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 2 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 745. —केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए ऄजधसूचना

सं. जी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं. 692 ददनांक 13.12.2024, गृि (ृुजलस.IX) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तजमलनाडु राज्य

सरकार की सम्पमजत से जथर. एम. श्रवणकुमार, ईृायुि, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर, मदुरै, जथर. ऄिोक, ऄधीक्षक, केंरीय

माल और सेवा कर, मदुरै, जथर. राजबीर ससि राणा, ऄधीक्षक, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर, मदुरै और सुश्री समीर गौतम,

जनरीक्षक, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर, मदुरै के जवरद्ध भारतीय न्याय संजिता, 2023 (2023 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 45) की

धारा 61 तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 49) की धारा 7 के ऄंतगचत दंडनीय

ऄृराधों के जलए ददनांक 17.12.2024 को ृंजीकृत अरसी2292024ए0005 तथा आस मामले के संबंध में ईन्िीं तथ्यों या

ईसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ऄन्य ऄृराधों तथा ऐसे ऄृराध(धों) से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा

और/ऄथवा िड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या ईन्िीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध का ऄन्वेिण तथा

जनयजमत मामला ृंजीकृत करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार

(कायोत्तर प्रभाव से ददनांक 17.12.2024 से) समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/10/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 745.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification No. G.O.(Ms.) No. 692 dated 13.12.2024, Home

(Police.IX) Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment in the whole State of Tamil Nadu (ex post facto w.e.f. 17.12.2024) for registration of a regular case and

investigation in RC2292024A0005 registered on 17.12.2024 against Thiru. M. Saravanakumar, Deputy

Commissioner, C.G.S.T., Madurai, Thiru. Ashok, Superintendent, C.G.S.T. Madurai, Thiru. Rajbir Singh Rana,

Superintendent, C.G.S.T. Madurai and Ms. Sameer Gautam, Inspector of C.G.S.T. Madurai, for the offences

punishable under section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Central Act 45 of 2023) and section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) and any other offences committed in the course of

transaction arising out the same fact, in regard to this case and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to

or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/10/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 3 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 746.—केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की धारा 5 की

ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए ृुजलस ईृमिाजनरीक्षक/िाखा प्रमुख, केन्रीय

ऄन्वेिण ब्यूरो, भ्रष्टाचार जनरोधक िाखा, रांची के ददनांक 29.10.2024 के ृत्र सं्‍या 636/सीओ-07/2024-अर द्वारा

दकए गए ऄनुरोध ृर झारखंड राज्य सरकार की ऄजधसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.अइ.-433/2024-737, रांची, ददनांक

04.02.2025, गृि, कारागार एवं अृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग तथा िुजद्धृत्र ऄजधसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.अइ.-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1823

433/2024-1550, रांची, ददनांक 06.03.2025, गृि, कारागार एवं अृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्पमजत

से जनम्नजलजखत संददग्ध व्यजियों:—

1.

श्री ऄमरीक ससि, मेससच संत ऑटोस के साझेदार, ृुत्र: श्री चरण ससि, जनवासी एचअइजी-बी-13, माधव

बाग कॉलोनी, रोड सं.-16, मानगो, जमिेदृुर-831012,

2.

श्री चरण ससि, मेससच संत ऑटोस के साझेदार, ृुत्र स्ट्वगीय िरबंस ससि, जनवासी एचअइजी-बी-13, माधव

बाग कॉलोनी, रोड सं.-16, मानगो, जमिेदृुर-831012,

3.

श्रीमती जससवदर ससि, मेससच संत ऑटोस की गारंटर, जनवासी एचअइजी-बी-13, माधव बाग कॉलोनी,

रोड सं.-16, मानगो, जमिेदृुर-831012,

4.

श्रीमती तेज कौर, मेससच संत ऑटोस की गारंटर, बी 1/2, एचअइजी, एम बी कॉलोनी, मानगो,

जमिेदृुर-831012,

5.

श्रीमती जसमरन कौर, मेससच संत ऑटोस की गारंटर, जनवासी एचअइजी-बी-13, माधव बाग कॉलोनी,

रोड सं.-16, मानगो, जमिेदृुर-831012,

6.

श्रीमती सतसवदर कौर, मेससच संत ऑटोस की गारंटर, जनवासी एचअइजी-बी-13, माधव बाग कॉलोनी,

रोड सं.-16, मानगो, जमिेदृुर-831012,

7.

श्री ऄजभिेक ससि, ऄजय कुंज, एच सं. 21, जोन सं. 11, जबरसानगर, टेल्को, जमिेदृुर-831004 और

8.

श्रीमती चन्दन अर ृी ससि, बी-05, साची ऄृाटचमेंट, प्लॉट सं.-04, सैक्टर – 04, नवी मुंबइ, ाणे।

मेससच संत ऑटोस (एक साझेदारी फमच) के सभी साझेदार और गारंटसच प्लॉट सं. 175-177, एचृी ृेरोल

ृंृ के समीृ, एनएच-33, रामगढ़ चांजडल, सरायकेला खरसावाँ, झारखंड-832401

9.

ऄज्ञात लोक सेवकों

के जवरद्ध भा.दं.सं की धारा 120बी सृर त धारा 409 के ऄंतगचत ऄृराधों को काररत करने तथा मामले

के ऄन्वेिण के दौरान सामने अने वाले दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों) सजित ऐसे एक या ईससे ऄजधक ऄृराधों

से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और िड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या

ईन्िीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध के जलए एक जनयजमत मामले का ृंजीकरण करने के जलए

ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सभी सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार ईि ऄजधजनयम के

ऄंतगचत झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/11/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2025

S.O. 746.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-433/2024-737, Ranchi, dated 04.02.2025,

Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department and Corrigendum Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-433/2024-

1550, Ranchi, dated 06.03.2025, Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department upon request made vide letter

No.-636/CO-07/2024-R, dated.-29.10.2024 of DIG of Police/Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Ranchi, hereby extends the

powers and jurisdiction to all the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under the said Act in the State of

Jharkhand for registration of a regular case against the following suspect person :—

1824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. Shri Amrik Singh, Partner of M/s Sant Autos, S/o: Shri Charan Singh, R/o HIG-B-13, Madhav Bagh

Colony, Road No-16, Mango, Jamshedpur-831012,

2. Shri Charan Singh, Partner of M/s Sant Autos, S/o Late Harbans Singh, R/o HIG - B-13, Madhav Bagh

Colony, Road No-16, Mango, Jamshedpur-831012,

3. Mrs. Jaswinder Singh, Guarantor of M/s Sant Autos, R/o HIG-B-13, Madhav Bagh Colony, Road No-16,

Mango, Jamshedpur-831012,

4. Mrs. Tej Kaur, Guarantor of M/s Sant Autos, B 1/2, HIG, M B Colony, Mango Jamshedpur-831012,

5. Mrs. Simran Kaur, Guarantor of M/s Sant Autos, R/o HIG-B-13, Madhav Bagh Colony, Road No-16,

Mango, Jamshedpur-831012,

6. Mrs. Satwinder Kaur, Guarantor of M/s Sant Autos, R/o HIG-B-13, Madhav Bagh Colony, Road No-16,

Mango, Jamshedpur-831012,

7. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Ajay Kunj, H No. 21, Zone no. 11, Birsanagar, Telco, Jamshedpur-831004 and

8. Mrs. Chandan R P Singh, B-05, Sachi Apartment, Plot No.-04, Sector - 04, Navi Mumbai, Thane.

All Partners and Guarantors of M/s Sant Autos (a Partnership Firm) Plot No. 175-177, Near HP Petro

Pump, NH-33, Ramgarh Chandil, Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand-832401.

9. Unknown Public Servants.

for committing offences u/s 120B r/w 409 of IPC and any other offence(s) that may come into light during

investigation of case including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more

such offences and/or any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the

same facts.

[F. No. 228/11/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 3 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 747. —केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तेलंगाना राज्य

सरकार की ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.एमएस. सं. 19, ददनांक 28.02.2025, गृि (जविेि) जवभाग और िुजद्धृत्र ऄजधसूचना

सं. जी.ओ.एमएस. सं. 33, ददनांक 20.03.2025, गृि (जविेि) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्पमजत से श्री टी.वी. चंरकांत,

मु्‍य वाजणजज्यक जनरीक्षक, जसकंदराबाद रेलवे स्ट्टेिन, जसकंदराबाद मंडल, दजक्षण-मध्य रेलवे, ऄज्ञात लोक सेवकों और

ऄज्ञात गैर-सरकारी व्यजियों के जवप द्ध जिकायतकताच श्री के.ऄिोक कुमार सुृुत्र लक्ष्मीनारायण, जनवासी अवास सं. 6-1-

471, बड़ा गणेि के ृीछे, खैरताबाद, िैदराबाद-500004 द्वारा ददनांक 13.02.2025 को दजच करायी गयी जिकायत के

संबंध में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 49) (2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 7 के

ऄंतगचत दंडनीय ऄृराधों के जलए जनयजमत मामला दजच करने/ऄन्वेिण का संचालन करने और ईि मामले के ऄन्वेिण के

दौरान सामने अने वाले दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध सजित ऐसे एक या ईससे ऄजधक ऄृराधों से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी

दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और िड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या ईन्िीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध तथा

जिकायतकताच द्वारा ददनांक 13.02.2025 को दजच कराइ जिकायत के अधार ृर ऄन्य संचयी ऄृराधों एवं दकसी ऄन्य

ऄृराध(धों) में श्री टी.वी. चंरकांत, मु्‍य वाजणजज्यक जनरीक्षक, जसकंदराबाद रेलवे स्ट्टेिन, जसकंदराबाद मंडल, दजक्षण-

मध्य रेलवे, ऄज्ञात लोक सेवकों और ऄज्ञात गैर-सरकारी व्यजियों के जवप द्ध जनयजमत मामला दजच करने/ऄन्वेिण का

संचालन करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तेलंगाना

राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/12/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1825

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2025

S.O. 747.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 28.02.2025, Home (Special)

Department and Errata Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 20.03.2025, Home (Special) Department, hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the

State of Telangana for conducting regular case/investigation into allegations mentioned in complaint dated

13.02.2025 lodged by the complainant Shri K.Ashok Kumar S/o Laxminarayana, R/o H.No.6-1-471, Backside of

Bada Ganesh, Khairtabad, Hyderabad- 500004 against Shri T.V.Chandrakanth, Chief Commercial Inspector,

Secunderabad Railway Station, Secunderabad Division of South-Central Railway, unknown public servants and

unknown private persons including regular case/investigation into any other offence(s) that may come to light during

the investigation of the said case including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with

one or more such offences and/or any offence committed in the course of such transaction or arising out of the same

facts against Shri T. V.Chandrakanth, Chief Commercial Inspector, Secunderabad Railway Station, Secunderabad

Division of South-Central Railway, unknown public servants and unknown private persons for the offences

punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act No. 49 of 1988) (as amended in 2018), other

cumulative offences and any other offence(s) on the basis of complaint dated 13.02.2025 lodged by the complainant.

[F. No. 228/12/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 748.—केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का ऄजधजनयम 25) की

धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य सरकार की

ऄजधसूचना सं. एफ-4-227/गृि-सी/2024 ददनांक 02.12.2024, गृि (सी-ऄनुभाग) जवभाग, मंत्रालय, मिानदी भवन,

नवा रायृुर, ऄटल नगर तथा संिोजधत ऄजधसूचना सं. एफ-4-227/गृि-सी/2024 ददनांक 06.02.2025, गृि

(सी-ऄनुभाग) जवभाग, मंत्रालय, मिानदी भवन, नवा रायृुर, ऄटल नगर के माध्यम से जारी सम्पमजत से थाना, राज्य

अर्षथक ऄृराध ब्यूरो, छत्तीसगढ़, रायृुर में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धारा-7,

7(क), 8, 13(2) और भारतीय दंड संजिता की धारा 182, 211, 193, 195-क, 166-क, 120ख के ऄंतगचत दजच ऄृराध

सं. 49/2024 का ऄन्वेिण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त छत्तीसगढ़ में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/109/2024-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2025

S.O. 748.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Chhattisgarh, issued vide Notification No. F-4-227/Home-C/2024 dated 02.12.2024, Home (C-Section)

Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar and Revised Notification No. F-4-227/Home-

C/2024 dated 06.02.2025, Home (C-Section) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of

Chhattisgarh for the investigation of Crime No. 49/2024 registered at Police Station State Economic Offences

Investigation Bureau, Chhattisgarh, Raipur under section-7, 7(A), 8, 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and

section 182, 211, 193, 195-A, 166-A, 120B of IPC.

[F. No. 228/109/2024-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 16 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 749.—केन्रीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का ऄजधजनयम

सं्‍या 25) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जनम्नजलजखत ऄृराधों को जवजनर्ददष्ट करती िै, जजनका

ऄन्वेिण ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों द्वारा भी दकया जाना िै, नामत:

(क) "अबकारी ऄजधजनयम 1, 1077" के ऄंतगचत दंडनीय ऄृराध।

1826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ख) ईृयुचि ऄृराध(धों) से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा एवं/ऄथवा िड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यविार

में दकए गए या ईन्िीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों)।

[फा. सं. 228/01/2020-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2025

S.O. 749.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to be

investigated by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely :—

(a) Offences punishable under ―The Abkari Act 1 of 1077‖.

(b) Any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned offence(s) and/or

for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/01/2020-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 16 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 750.—केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की धारा 5 की

ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज् य सरकार की ऄजधसूचना सं. गृि-

एसएसए2/268/2019-गृि, जतप वनंतृुरम, ददनांक 24.12.2019, गृि (गुप्त ऄनुभाग- ए) जवभाग (एस.अर.ओ.

सं्‍या- 1006/2019) के माध्यम से जारी सम्पमजत से कोट्टायम जजले के मरंगट्टुृल्ली थाने में, जसबी की मौत और ईससे

संबंजधत मामलों से संबंद्ध ऄृराध सं्‍या 528/2015, 530/2015 और 531/2015, जजन्िें बाद में ऄृराध िाखा-ऄृराध

जांच जवभाग, कोट्टायम में ऄृराध सं्‍या 68/सीअर/2015, 69/सीअर/2015 और 70/सीअर/2015 के प ृ में ृुनः

क्रमांदकत दकया गया, का ऄन्वेिण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/01/2020-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2025

S.O. 750.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No. Home-SSA2/268/2019-Home, Thiruvananthapuram,

dated 24.12.2019, Home (Secret Section - A) Department (S. R. O. No. 1006/2019), hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Kerala for the

investigation of offences involved in Crime No.528/2015, 530/2015 and 531/2015 of the Marangattupally Police

Station, Kottayam District subsequently re-numbered as Crime Nos. 68/CR/2015, 69/CR/2015 and 70/CR/2015 of the

Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department, Kottayam, in connection with the death of Siby and matters

related thereto.

[F. No. 228/01/2020-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 22 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 751. —केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तेलंगाना राज्य

सरकार की ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.एमएस. सं. 34, ददनांक 25.03.2025, गृि (जविेि) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्पमजत

से श्री सइद मुनवर बािा, प्रधान मु्‍य ृररचालन प्रबंधक, ृीसीओएम/एससीअर के तत्कालीन सजचव, दजक्षण-मध्य रेलवे

के ऄज्ञात लोक सेवकों और ऄज्ञात गैर-सरकारी व्यजियों के जवप द्ध श्री च. राकेि, ईृ मु्‍य सतकचता ऄजधकारी/टी एंड

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1827

अरृीएफ/एससी, मिाप्रबंधक कायाचलय, सतकचता िाखा, जसकंदराबाद, दजक्षण-मध्य रेलवे से केन्रीय ऄन्वेिण ब्यूरो,

भ्रष्टाचार जनरोधक िाखा, िैदराबाद द्वारा ददनांक 14.11.2024 को प्राप्त जिकायत के संबंध में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 49) (2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 7(क), 12, भारतीय दंड संजित

की धारा 120-बी सृर त भारतीय न्याय संजिता, 2023 (2023 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम सं.45) की धारा 61 के खंड (2) के

ऄंतगचत दंडनीय ऄृराधों के जलए जनयजमत मामला दजच करने/ऄन्वेिण का संचालन करने और ईि मामले के ऄन्वेिण के

दौरान सामने अने वाले दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध सजित ऐसे एक या ईससे ऄजधक ऄृराधों से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी

दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और िड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या ईन्िीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध तथा

जिकायतकताच द्वारा ददनांक 14.11.2024 को दजच कराइ गइ जिकायत के अधार ृर ऄन्य संचयी ऄृराधों में श्री सइद

मुनवर बािा, प्रधान मु्‍य ृररचालन प्रबंधक, ृीसीओएम/एससीअर के तत्कालीन सजचव, दजक्षण-मध्य रेलवे के ऄज्ञात

लोक सेवकों और ऄज्ञात गैर-सरकारी व्यजियों के जवप द्ध जनयजमत मामला दजच करने/ऄन्वेिण का संचालन करने के जलए

ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सभी सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तेलंगाना राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/17/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2025

S.O. 751.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 25.03.2025, Home (Special)

Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to all the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

in the whole of the State of Telangana for conducting regular case/investigation into allegations mentioned in the

complaint dated 14.11.2024 received by CBI, ACB, Hyderabad from Sri Ch. Rakesh, Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer/T

& RPF/SC, General Manager's Office, Vigilance Branch, Secunderabad, South Central Railway against Sri Syed

Munvar Basha, then Secretary to Principal Chief Operations Manager, PCOM/SCR, unknown public servants of SC

Railway and unknown private persons including regular case/investigation into any other offence that may come to

light during the investigation of the said case including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in

connection with one or more such offences and/or any offence committed in the course of such transaction or arising

out of the same facts against Sri Syed Munvar Basha, then Secretary to Principal Chief Operations Manager,

PCOM/SCR, unknown public servants of SC Railway and unknown private persons for the offences punishable under

sections 7 (a), 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act No.49 of 1988) (as amended in 2018), 120-B

of IPC read with clause (2) of section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Central Act No.45 of 2023) & other

cumulative offences on the basis of complaint dated.14.11.2024 lodged by the complainant.

[F. No. 228/17/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 23 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 752.—केन् रीय सरकार ददल् ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट् थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की धारा 5 की

ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जारी ऄजधसूचना सं्‍या 9/सी.बी.अइ.-80-

07/2023 एचृी-3217, ृटना, ददनांक 13.03.2025 गृि जवभाग, (ृुजलस िाखा) के माध्यम से ईत्तर जबिार ग्रामीण

बैंक, मांझागढ़ िाखा, जजला-गोृालगंज में जवत्तीय धोखाधड़ी से संबंजधत मांझागढ थाने में भारतीय दंड संजिता की

धारा-420/467/468/471/409/34 के तित दजच मामला सं्‍या-222/2022, ददनांक-13-07-2022 का ऄन्वेिण/

जनगरानी और जांच करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त

जबिार राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/19/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

1828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2025

S.O. 752.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Bihar, issued vide Notification No. 9/C.B.I-80-07/2023 HP 3217, Patna, dated 13.03.2025, Home

Department, (Police Branch), hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of Bihar to investigate/supervise and inquire into the Manjhagarh P.S. Case No-222/2022,

Dated-13-07-2022, Section-420/467/468/471/409/34 I.P.C. which relates to Financial fraud in Uttar Bihar Gramin

Bank, Manjhagarh Branch, District-Gopalganj.

[F. No. 228/19/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 24 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 753.—केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

ईृ-धारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री ृाथचसारथी अनंद स्ट्वरृ ृजत, ऄजधविा को, माननीय झारखंड

ईच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष केंरीय ऄन्वेिण ब्यूरो की ओर से जविेि लोक ऄजभयोजक के रृ में िाजजर िोने से िटाती िै और

आस प्रयोजन के जलए भारत सरकार के कार्षमक, लोक जिकायत और ृेंिन मंत्रालय, कार्षमक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग की,

भारत के राजृत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, ईृखंड (ii), तारीख 2 जसतम्पबर, 2023 में, सं. का.अ. 1341, तारीख 9 जनवरी,

2023 द्वारा प्रकाजित ऄजधसूचना का जवखंडन करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/32/2021-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2025

S.O. 753.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby removes Shri Parthasarthy Anand Swaroop Pati,

Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for appearing on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation before the Hon‘ble

High Court of Jharkhand and for that purpose rescinds the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), vide number S.O. 1341 dated the

9th January, 2023, published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated the 2nd September, 2023.

[F. No. 225/32/2021-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 29 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 754.—केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम

25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तेलंगाना राज्य सरकार की

ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.एमएस.सं.37, ददनांक 27.03.2025, गृि (जविेि) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्पमजत से केंरीय

ऄन्वेिण ब्यूरो, भ्रष्टाचार जनरोधक िाखा, िैदराबाद को प्राप्त स्रोत सूचना के अधार ृर संजवदाकार मेससच संध्या कंस्ट्रक्िन,

दजक्षण मध्य रेलवे, जसकंदराबाद के ऄज्ञात लोक सेवकों और ऄज्ञात गैर-सरकारी व्यजियों के जवप द्ध गैंगडेज की ऄजधक

सं्‍या का दावा करने के मामले में गंभीर ऄजनयजमतताएं करने संबंधी काररत ऄृराध, ऄन्य संचयी ऄृराधों और

जांच/ऄन्वेिण के दौरान सामने अने वाले दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों) का केंरीय ऄन्वेिण ब्यूरो द्वारा ऄजधसूजचत धाराओं और

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केन्रीय ऄजधजनयम 49), (2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धाराओं के

ऄन्तगचत जांच/ऄन्वेिण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेि ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सभी सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तेलंगाना राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/20/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1829

New Delhi, the 29th April, 2025

S.O. 754.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 27.03.2025, Home (Special) Department,

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to all the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of

the State of Telangana for conducting Enquiry/Investigation on offence of committing serious irregularities in the matter

of claiming higher number of gangdays on a source information received by Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti

Corruption Branch, Hyderabad, against Contractor M/s Sandhya Constructions, unknown public servants of South

Central Railway, Secunderabad & unknown private persons under sections notified for investigation by CBI and

sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(Central Act No. 49 of 1988) (as amended in 2018) other cumulative

offences and any other offence(s) that may come to light during Enquiry/Investigation.

[F. No. 228/20/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 1 ऄप्रैल, 2025

का.अ. 755.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj अंध्र प्रदेि ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds

iapkV (a1/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-58]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.1/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

and their workmen.

[ No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-58]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of March, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.1/2023

Between:

B. Vijay Kumar, S/o Balaswamy,

Age: 38 years, Occ: Ex. Employee,

R/o H.No. 6-76-10/2050, Plot No. 10,

First Floor, Privilegal Estate, Street No. 1,

1830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chengicherla, Boduppal, Medchal,

Malkajgiri-500092.

AND

The General Manager,

Disciplinary Authority,

Andra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank (APGVB)

H.No. 2-5-8/1, H.No. Hanumakonda, Warangal Dis.

Telangana-506001.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent:

N. Srinivas, Advocate

AWARD

Sri B. Vijay Kumar, who worked as Office Assistant (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents APGVB respondents herein to

reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and

further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2.

On the date fixed for Petitioner‘s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient

opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‗No claim‘ award is

passed for want of evidence.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 7th day of March, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 1 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 756.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj सीएसबी बैंक जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; एनाचकुलम ds iapkV

(a15/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-57]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1831

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2025

S.O. 756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 15/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CSB Bank Ltd. and

their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-I) 57]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT: ERNAKULAM

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6th day of March, 2025

ID No.15/2023

Between: The General Secretary,

Catholic Syrian Bank Staff Federation,

Udhaya Buildings, Floor No.II, College Road,

Trissur - 680001

…….. Union/Petitioner

AND: 1) The Chairman,

CSB Bank Ltd.,CSB Bhavan,

P.B. No.502, St. Mary‘s College Road,

Trissur – 680020

2) The General Manager,

Chief Risk Officer,

CSB Bank Ltd., CSB Bhavan,

Head Office, Trissur – 680020 . Managements/Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s Shenoy Law Associates

For the Respondent: Head, ER, CSB Bank

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Office of the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (C), Cochin by its order No.07/06/2021/D2 dated 29.05.2023, referred the following dispute under

Clause (d) of sub Section 1 and Sub Section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of M/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., and their workman. The schedule of the

reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of CSB Bank, Trissur in initiating disciplinary proceeding in the name of misusing of ID and

Password of the employees by someone else without the knowledge of the employee concerned is legal, justified and

proper. If not, what relief the workmen are eligible to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.15/2023 and the case is presently posted on 21.04.2025,

for Appearance.

2.

The matter was taken up today for hearing through video conference in view of the direction of Ministry of

Labour & Employment, Government of India to conduct special campaign for disposal of cases vide letter

dated 14.2.2025.

1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

Heard both sides through video conference. The petitioner union has filed the memo with the averment that

the issue was sorted out amicably between the Union and the Management of CSB Bank and there is nothing left for

further adjudication. Therefore, petitioner union prayed to permit the petitioner to withdraw the claim / ID treating it

as not pressed in the interest of justice.

4.

The Respondent has also concurred the same.

5.

Therefore, in view of the above, a No-dispute Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Suresh N.K., Secretary to the Court, corrected and signed by me on this the

6th day of March, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Union/Petitioner

Management/Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 1 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 757.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV

(a77/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/521/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2025

S.O. 757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 77/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

their workmen.

[No. L-12012/521/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 16th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 77/2001

Between:

Sri Y.V. Ramana,

H.No.8-3-1114/2,

Kesavanagar Colony,

Hyderabad-500 073.

… Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1833

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Responden : Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/521/2000-IR(B.I) dated 13.6.2001

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri Y.V. Ramana, Temporary/Non-.Messenger,SBI with effect from 31.3.1997

is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No.77/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and

the management.

2.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the

aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ

petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State

Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to

their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy

arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch

petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of

2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal

was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

1834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated

20.3.019.

3.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,

the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Non-Messenger from 1987 to 1997, and has

rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years. The Respondent has terminated services of

Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent

bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by

wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4.

That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5.

The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and

the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

6.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the

1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the

3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is

5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5.

That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1835

expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services

would be regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis

was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his

options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial

terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated

16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were

specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted

to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel

and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is

specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement

and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High

court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It

also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High

Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the

directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of

the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a

settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid

upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the

basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide

impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable

expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the

settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31

3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are

in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action

the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by

way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager

and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also

non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of

Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them

in service.

8.

Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has

submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of

circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.

It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had

engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or

of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the

employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend

under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit

would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is

a facet of unfair labour practice.

9.

The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than

240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be

decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in

less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is

mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982

would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement

in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession

entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.The management

has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the

empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent

letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing

of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1837

engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It

was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies

till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management

terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of

natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental

and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

1838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W10. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support

of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the notification of State Bank of India. Ex.W2 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with

the proof of working days. Ex.W4 is panel list. Further, Ex.W5 to Ex.W9 are service certificates. Wherein it was

shown that workman has worked for 148 days, 88 days, 39 days 83 days and 177 days respectively. Ex.W10 is a

statement showing vacancies.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1839

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Alluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Market Street branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri Y.V. Ramana, a Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,

minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947

read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

1840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1841

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th

Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated

with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do

not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and

in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion

his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority

in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position

and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated

30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and

absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto

31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision

contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

1842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1843

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter

VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240

days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

―My name was not sponsored by any employment exchange for appointment in the bank. I did not undergo regular

process of selection before my appointment in the bank‖. Further, witness states, ― I did not work for 240 days in any

year in any branch in the bank.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12

months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

1844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular

vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1845

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th

Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of

India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the

same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the

settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature

of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D.

Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated

30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no

legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I applied to the bank in response to the notification issued by the bank as per the various settlements entered into

by the bank with the union. Further, witness states, ―I do not know that the panels were prepared basing on the

number of days put in by the temporary employees. I do not know that the bank had appointed the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel as per their seniority in the panel.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1847

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either

in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

1848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1849

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri Y.V. Ramana, Ex.Non-Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 16th day of April, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Y.V. Ramana

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement

Ex.W2: Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W3: Photocopy of lr. dt. 12.1.1993

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Panel list

Ex.W5: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W7: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W9: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W10:

Photocopy of statement showing vacancy position.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12:

Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 1 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 758.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a75/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/519/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2025

S.O. 758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 75/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India their workmen.

[No. L-12012/519/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 75/2001

Between:

Sri R. Satyanarayana,

Chilukanagarau,

Plot No.109, H.No.20-54/A,

Uppal, Hyderabad -39.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1851

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/519/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.6.2001

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Temporary/Non-.Messenger,SBI with effect from

31.3.1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 75/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and

the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view

of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases

was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the

Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved

Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and

set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No. 222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of

India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their

termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises.

This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was

challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The

aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of

Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased

to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement

dated 20.3.019.

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the

Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1986 to 1997, and has rendered

unblemished service spreading over a period of about 12 years. The Respondent has terminated services of

Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent

bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by

wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the

said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement

(Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex

M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In

between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these

settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of

the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in

the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide

hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is

needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated 16.8.1990.

Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically

instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any

permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by the inaction on

the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly

focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is specifically averred

in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates

the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High court of A.P .. by

order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also directed the

bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High Court also recorded

finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions given by

the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement

entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a settlement dated

27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid upto December,

1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the

settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide impression

that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation.

Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the settlements entered

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1853

into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31 3.1997 instructing the

various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank

from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the Workman herein and

similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by way of Writ Petition

No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant

General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also non-continuance

of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1)

read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.

8. Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has submitted

that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on

account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre. It is pertinent to

mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged. Enquiry

into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary

employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the employed in the

erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various

statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show

that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of

unfair labour practice.

9. The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by

entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than

240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management

so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned

that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be

eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect

of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered

into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

1854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.The management

has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the

empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent

letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing

of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to

engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It

was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies

till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management

terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of

natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental

and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1855

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W16. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support

of his claim which are discussed as under:- Ex.W1 is the transfer certificate issued by school. Further, Ex.W2 is

the memorandum of marks. Ex.W3 is the service certificate for 73 days. Ex.W4 is another certificate issued by the

Branch Manager dated 1.8.86. Further, Ex.W5 is an application for temporary messenger post. Further Ex.W6 is

the interview call letter. Further, Ex.W7 is the servie certificate. Ex.W8 is the panel list. Ex.W9 and W14 also goes

to show that the certificate of proof of working days of Workman has been issued and as per Ex.W9 Workman has

had worked from 9.5.91 to 23.11.91 for 199 days and as per Ex.W10 Workman has worked from 14.5.1992 to

28.11.1992 for total period of 199 days. Ex.W11 shows that he worked for 199 days during the period from 20.5.93

to 6.12.93. Ex. W12 shows that he worked for 199 days during the period from 5.7.1994 to 24.1.1995. Ex.W13 is

the certificate showing that workman worked from 1.9.1995 to 22.3.1996 for 199 days. Ex.W14 is another service

certificate showing that Petitioner has worked for 165 days from 4.10.96 to 25.3.97. Ex.W15 is the circular dated

8.4.1999. Ex.W16 is a letter addressed by the Respondent to theranches stating that the persons who were

terminated from service on 31.3.1997 should not be reemployed.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Aluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1857

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, main branch, Secunderabad in terminating the services

of Workman Sri R. Satyanarayana, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:-

Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and

30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed

between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of

I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1859

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th

Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated

with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do

not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and

in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion

his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority

in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position

and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated

30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and

absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto

31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision

contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter

VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240

days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1861

―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange‖. Further, witness states, ―It is true that I did not work for 240

days in any year in the bank.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12

months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular

vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th

Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of

India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the

same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1863

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I was called for interview in the year 1989 perusant to settlements entered into between the all India SBI Staff

Federation and the Management of State Bank of India. Further, witness states, It is true that the vacancies filled

up on regular basis with empanelled temporary Messengers in the order of seniroty that is basing on the number of

days they have worked in the bank. He is not aware of the settlements. Further witness states, I am not having any

details or proof to show that any juniors to me were given permanent absorption in the bank‖.

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either

in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1865

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 15th day of April, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

-2WW1: Sri R. Satyanarayana

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1867

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photocopy of transfer certificate

Ex.W2:

Photocopy of memorandum of marks

Ex.W3:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W4:

Photocopy of service certificate dt. 1.8.86

Ex.W5:

Photocopy of application

Ex.W6:

Photocopy of call letter for interview

Ex.W7:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of panel list dt.3.9.91

Ex.W9:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W10: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W11: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W12: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W13: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W14: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W15: Photocopy of lr. dt.8.4.99 from Respondent to the Employment Exchange

Ex.W16: Photocopy of lr. addressed by the Respondent to the branches stating that the persons who were

terminated from service on 31.3.97 should not be re-employed.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12:

Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 1 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 759.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a191/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/81/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2025

S.O. 759.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 191/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India their workmen.

[No. L-12012/81/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 191/2001

Between:

Sri N. Srinivasa Rao,

S/o N.B. Jangaiah,

H.No.6-1-1020/1,

Barkat Manzil, Beside Mosque,

Khairatabad,

Hyderabad – 500 004.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/81/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.8.2001

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, Temporary/Non-.Messenger,SBI with effect from

31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 191/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman

and the management.

2.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the

aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1869

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ

petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State

Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to

their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy

arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch

petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of

2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal

was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated

20.3.019.

3.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,

the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1985 to 1992, and has rendered

unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman

by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided

to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them

by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4.

That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5.

The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and

the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

1870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

6.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st

settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd

settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement

(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all

these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the

list of the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be

regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under

the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options

elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was

made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated

16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were

specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted

to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel

and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is

specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement

and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High

court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It

also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High

Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the

directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of

the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a

settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid

upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the

basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide

impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable

expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the

settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31

3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are

in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action

the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by

way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager

and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also

non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of

Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them

in service.

8.

Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has

submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of

circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.

It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had

engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or

of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the

employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend

under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit

would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is

a facet of unfair labour practice.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1871

9.

The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by

entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than

240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management

so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned

that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be

eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect

of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered

into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The

management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving

chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent

Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,

subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,

the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for

absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the

Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of

the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,

violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman

and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1873

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

1874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W9. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of

his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with

the Respondent branch as messenger, this certificate was issued on 25.5.1989. Further, Ex.W2 is the notification

and Ex.W3 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W4 is intimation

of inclusion of his name in panel list. Further, Ex.W5 to Ex.W7 are service certificates. Similarly Ex.W8 is the

notification issued by the bank through Employment Exchange for appointment of staff and Ex.W9 is a circular letter

dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular

for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Aluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :—

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Khairatabad branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,

minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947

read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1875

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

1876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th

Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated

with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do

not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and

in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion

his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority

in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position

and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated

30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and

absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto

31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision

contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1877

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

1878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter

VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240

days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

engagement as temporary messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the

availability of work in the branch.‖

―It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank in any branch.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12

months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1879

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular

vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th

Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of

India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the

same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1881

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I applied for appointment as non-messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1989.

Further, witness states, the panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary

employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. He is not aware of the settlements. Further witness

states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was

given appointment in the bank.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

1882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either

in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1883

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

1884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 17th day of April, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri N. Srinivasa Rao

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement

Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W4: Photocopy of intimation reg. empanelment of workman

Ex.W5: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate.

Ex.W7: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy Photocopy of notification through Employment Exchange for filling up vacancies

Ex.W9: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.9.1.1991

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1885

Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7: Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8: Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9: Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 1 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 760.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a143/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/391/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2025

S.O. 760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 143/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India their workmen.

[No. L-12012/391/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 143/2001

Between:

Sri Y.S. Rajkumar,

H.No.13-2-601/71,

CIB Quarters, Rahimpura,

P.O. Karwan, Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

1886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/391/2000-IR(B.I) dated 9.5.2001

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri Y.S. Rajkumar, Temporary/Non-.Messenger, SBI with effect from

31.3.1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 143/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman

and the management.

2.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the

aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ

petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State

Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to

their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy

arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch

petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of

2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal

was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1887

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement

dated 20.3.019.

3.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,

the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1988 to 1997, and has rendered

unblemished service spreading over a period of about 9 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman

by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided

to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them

by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4.

That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5.

The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and

the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

6.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the

1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the

3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th

settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5.

That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable

expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services

would be regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis

was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his

options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial

terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated

16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were

specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted

to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel

and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P. It is

specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement

and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High court

of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also

directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High Court also

recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions

given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the

agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a

settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid

upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the

basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide

impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable

1888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the

settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and

31 3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who

are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said

action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court

and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General

Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as

illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as

violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to

absorb them in service.

8.

Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 9206/97, the bank has

submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of

circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.

It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had

engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or

of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the

employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend

under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit

would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is

a facet of unfair labour practice.

9.

The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by

entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than

240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management

so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned

that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be

eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect

of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered

into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1889

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.

The

management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving

chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent

Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,

subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,

the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for

absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the

Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of

the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,

violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman

and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

1890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1891

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W9. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of

his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with

the Respondent branch as temporary messenger for total 55 days this certificate was issued on 21.7.1992. Further,

Ex.W2 is the advertisement and Ex.W3 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of

working days. Ex.W4 is letter dated 12/1/1993. Further, Ex.W5 is a certificate dt.16.5.1994 showing that WW1 has

worked as a temporary messenger at the branch for a period of 198 days with effect from 12.10.1993 to 11.5.1994.

Further Ex.W6 is another certificate dt. 3.4.1997 showing that WW1 has worked as a temporary messenger at the

branch from 4.7.1995 to 23.1.1996. Further, Ex.W7 is another certificate showing that WW1 has worked as a

temporary messenger at the branch with effect from 12.8.96 to 26.2.97. Ex.W8 is requirement sent to the

Employment Exchange for the vacancies dt.8.4.1999. Ex.W9 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the

General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought

the report/objections strictly.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Alluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

1892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Nacharam branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri Y.S. Rajkumar, a Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,

minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947

read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1893

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

1894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide

5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated

with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do

not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in

response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his

name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in

the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position

and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated

30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and

absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto

31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision

contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1895

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter

VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240

days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

1896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

engagement as temporary attender in the branch.‖ Further, witness states,

―I did not work for 240 days in any year in entire service in the bank.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12

months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1897

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular

vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the

5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank

of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge

the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

1898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I applied for appointment as non-messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in terms of the

settlements entered into between the bank and the union. Further, witness states, the panel was prepared basing

upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose

names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel.

Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days

than me was given appointment in the bank.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1899

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either

in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

1900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1901

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri Y.S. Rajkumar, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 17th day of April, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Y.S. Rajkumar

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement

1902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Panel list

Ex.W5: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W7: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of notification through Employment Exchange for filling up vacancies

Ex.W9: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12:

Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 1 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 761.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मु्‍यालय, कमांडर वक्सच आंजीजनयर, दफरोजृुर कैंट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

डds iapkV (a23/2023)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 42011/181/2021-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2025

S.O. 761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No.1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Head

Quarter, Commander Works Engineer, Ferozepur Cantt. and their workmen.

[No. L-42011/181/2021- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Presiding Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 23/2023

Registered On: 18.03.2024

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1903

General Secretary, Sh. Rajesh Kumar MES Civilian Worker‘s & Employees Union, Ferozepur (Punjab)-152001.

...........Workman

Versus

Head Quarter, Commander Works Engineer, Ferozepur Cantt. Ferozepur (Punjab)-152001.

........Management

Award

Passed On: 20.03.2025

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/181/2021-IR (DU) dated 07.02.2022, under clause (d) of

Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

―Whether the demands raised by MES Civilian Workers & Employees Union Ferozpur (PB.) vide

letter dated 20.03.2021 to the Management of Commander Works Engineer, Ferozpur Cantt. Is

proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs the disputant workers are entitled? What directions

are necessary in this matter?”

1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing claim statement by

workman but none is responding on behalf of workman.

2. Perused the file and it is found that none appeared on behalf Workman. Several opportunities have already been

given to the workman to file the claim statement but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‗No Claim Award‘.

Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion

be consigned in the record room.

3. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

B. K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 1 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 762.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkbZ

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iqus ds iapkV (a1/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/122/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2025

S.O. 762.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.1/2016) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Pune as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank Ltd. and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/122/2015- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST LABOUR COURT, PUNE

(Presided over by – Smt. T. A. Sawant )

Reference (IDA) No. 1 of 2016

ADJUDICATION BETWEEN :-

1.

The Chief Executive Officer,

)...First Parties

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

)

Corporate Head Office, ICICI Bank Tower,

)

Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),

)

Mumbai-400051.

)

1904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The Manager (HR) Department,

)

ICICI Bank, Regional Office,

)

Rajwada Chowk, Sangli-416416.

)

3.

The Branch Manager,

)

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

)

A.P. Valvan, Tal. Atpadi,

)

Dist. Sangli-416311

)

AND

Shri. Rajendra Madhukar Tarade,

)...Second Party.

R/o. At Post Bamnoli, Tal. Jawali,

)

Dist. Satara.

)

Appearances :-

Adv. Bhushan S. Tapaswi, for the First Party.

Adv. Mangesh G. Chavan, for the Second Party.

AWARD

[ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES]

(Passed on 05th April, 2025 )

1]

The present reference is forwarded to this Court by the Section Officer, Government of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi vide order No. L-12012/122/2015- IR(B-I), dated 14/12/2015 for adjudicating demand of the

Second Party that :-"Whether Shri Ravindra Madhukar Tarade is 'workman'? If yes, then whether the action of the

management of ICICI Bank in terminating his service 24/06/2013 is orally is justified ? If yes, what relief the

workman is entitled to ?"

2]

The Second Party filed ‗Statement of Claim‘ below Exh. U-3. It is submitted that he is a 'workman', he never

had any supervisory, administrative or managerial powers. He was doing clerical nature of wok. No employee was

working under him. The First Party is engaged in the business of banking and financial services and it is an ‗industry‘

under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the systematic activities are carried out in it. First

Party No. 1 is the Chief Executive Officer and Administrative Head of the bank. First Party No. 2 is the HR Head for

region of Sangli District and First Party No. 3 is the Branch Manager of Jambhulani / Valvan branch. They controlled

and supervised the work of the Second Party. He was working with the First Party since 01/04/2011 as a customer

service officer cum clerk. He was permanent and his attendance was marked on the regular attendance register

maintained by the First Party. His monthly salary was paid by the First Party by depositing it in the bank account. He

was continuously working on permanent vacant post and doing the work as per the directions, supervision and control

of the First Party. His services were orally terminated on 23/06/2014 by the First Party stating that his services are not

required. He was not allowed to resume his regular duties. His termination is illegal. He contacted the HR department

and requested them to allow him to join the duties and also sent the emails on 28/05/2014, 08/08/2014, 19/08/2014,

01/09/2014, 18/09/2014, 20/09/2014, 27/09/2014, 04/08/2014 and 09/08/2014 about his major illness and requested

them to allow him to join the duties, but they failed to do so. He sent them legal notice on 22/09/2014 and

16/10/2014. The First Party bank replied to the same on 23/10/2014 mentioning false reasons, but they failed to give

proper reason for his oral termination. He has not abandoned the services.

3]

He approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sangli, for his reinstatement and back wages on

20/02/2015. The First Party had not given one month‘s notice or notice pay, enquiry was not conducted against him,

he was not given any compensation, no other employees were terminated, seniority list was not published, the

principle of ‗first come last go‘ was not followed, the provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H were violated. His

termination is therefore illegal and unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practices. He submitted that due to peptic

ulcer illness, he wan unable to attend his duties from 20/05/2014 to 23/06/2014. He was under the treatment of Dr.

Vikram Paramane - Sunita Hospital, Pachwad. Dr. Pendharkar - Tejonidhi Hospital, Satara, Dr. Vinay Thorat - Pune

and Dr. Bhaleghare - Satara. He had communicated the same to Branch Manager - Vasant Gurav, HR - Tejas

Karandikar, Rameshrao - Cluster Manager, Tasgaon-Sangli, Gopal Sawant - Regional Service Manager, Sangli on

20/05/2014. He told them that he was hospitalized and could not attend the duties. He sent all the medical documents

and details through emails on 28/05/2014, but with an intention to victimize him and to cause him monetary loss, the

First Party did not consider his documents and medical illness before terminating his services. He has no other source

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1905

of income. His oral termination is for patently false reasons, not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the

employer‘s rights, with undue haste, by way of victimization and unfair labour practices. He tried to get alternative

job but did not succeed. The Conciliation Officer, Pune had called the parties for discussion, but the First Party made

irrelevant submissions before the Conciliation Officer and did not cooperate, hence, the conciliation failed and the

present dispute is sent for adjudication. It is therefore prayed that his reference be allowed, his termination dated

23/06/2014 be declared as illegal, it may be quashed and set aside and he may be reinstated with continuity of service,

full back wages and other consequential benefits.

4]

The First Party filed their ‗Written Statement‘ below Exh. C-2. It is submitted that the First Party is banking

company engaged in the business of banking having branches across the country and abroad. It employed more than

83000 employees and their contract of employment governs the terms and conditions of service. The Second Party

was appointed w.e.f. 04/04/2011 as customer service officer in managerial / administrative capacity. He stopped

attending the duties unilaterally and has on his own abandoned the services w.e.f. 23/06/2014. He was drawing

monthly wages of Rs.18,000/-. He was never appointed as a workman in clerical capacity as alleged by him. He is not

a 'workman' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5]

It is submitted that the First Party is company and legal person, it can sue and can be sued. The appointing

authority of the ICICI bank appointed the Second Party, however, for the reasons best known to him, he has made the

C.E.O. First Party No. 1, Manager HR department First Party No. 2 and Branch Manager, District Sangli as First

Party No. 3 as a parties in the present reference. Hence, the present reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of

mis joinder of the parties. The present reference preferred under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

however, there is no discharge/dismissal/retrenchment/ otherwise termination of his services. He has himself

abandoned his service and absconded without any reason or permission. It is submitted that the Second Party was

posted at ICICI bank Ltd. Grampanchayat Jambhulani, Grampanchayt Office at Jambhulani, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli,

Maharashtra in the year 2013. Despite being occupying supervisory position, he unilaterally stopped attending the

duties from May-2014, leaving the branch functioning in shamble. He approached the Labour Commissioner, Sangli.

The said Commissioner ought to have sent the reference for adjudication to Labour Court, Satara, but they referred

the present dispute to Labour Court, Pune. The entire alleged cause of action took place in the territorial jurisdiction

of the Labour Court Satara. Hence, the preliminary issues of territorial jurisdiction, mis joinder of the parties,

workman and maintainability be framed and should be decided first.

6]

It is submitted that the Second Party was appointed as customer service operator at Jalgaon. He has

successfully completed his post graduate diploma. He was getting Rs.7,600/- during the training period as IFBI

trainee and then Rs.16,605/- as monthly wages. When he abandoned his services in the month of May-2014, he was

getting Rs. 18,000/- as monthly wages. The appointment letter dated 29/03/2011 having the terms and conditions of

employment were duly accepted and acknowledged by him. He stated that he was appointed as an officer. They have

never terminated his services. He himself stopped from attending the duties from May-2014. No reasons are stated by

him why he made C.E.O., HR Manager and branch manager as a party in personal capacity. They have no employed

him in their personal capacity. His nature of duties included generate new customers, leads through various channels,

proactively identify sales prospects and conduct business development activities in the geography assigned, follow up

a new leads and referrals to generate business, achieve monthly sales target assigned to him for various products and

services, cross sell new products, follow the various internal guidelines and procedure of the bank, ensure customer

satisfaction through regular engagement, resolved customer queries and issues and facilitated and customer service

and maintained periodical status reports including daily activities reports and calls and to make the follow up. These

are all supervisory and managerial nature of services.

7]

It is submitted that he stopped attending the duties from May-2014 without permission. The First Party tried

to contact him through emails and requests to resume his duties at the earliest, but their efforts proved futile. The

Second Party did not report for duty. Hence, it is the case of abandonment of service. They have not terminated his

services. They have sent letters dated 05/06/2014, 23/06/2014, 27/05/2014 to the Second Party and informed him

about his unauthorized absenteeism and requested to him to resume his duties, but he failed to do so. He has never

submitted any medical documents and papers as pe the procedure. The legal notice was received and replied by them.

As per the demand in the notice dated 24/09/2014, the First Party had issued him service certificate/ experience letter

and since his case was not of resignation or superannuation, the question of any relieving letter does not arise. He is

aware that he has left the job on his own accord. Therefore, he requested the bank for issuing relieving letter. Since,

they have not terminated his services, hence, the question of giving one month of notice, notice pay, compensation,

conducting enquiry, publishing seniority list, following principle of ‗first come last go‘ and complying the provisions

of sections 25-F, G and H does not arise. They are not aware about the major illness like peptic ulcer due to which he

could not attend the duties or the doctors under whom, he took treatment. Even in cases of claimed sickness, he has to

follow the rules of the First Party. He has failed to follow the same. His legal notice is silent on the issue of

hospitalization. The letter dated 23/06/2014 is a communication informing him that the bank has taken note of his

voluntarily abandonment of his services as displayed by him by his unilateral act of stopping to attend the duties.

They have not engaged in any unfair labour practices. They have not terminated his services. He is not entitled for any

reliefs. He is not a 'workman'. It is therefore prayed that the reference be rejected.

1906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8]

Issues are framed below Exh. O-5 by my Ld. Predecessor, out of which issue Nos. 1 to 4 are treated as

preliminary issues, I hereby answer the same along-with my finding with reasons as follows :-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1.

Whether this Court is having territorial jurisdiction ?

In the affirmative.

2.

Whether there is mis joinder of parties ?

In the negative.

3.

Whether the present reference under section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable ?

In the negative.

4.

Whether the Second Party is a 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

In the negative.

REASONS

9]

The Second Party examined himself below Exh. U-13. He was duly cross-examined by Learned Advocate

for the First Party. During his evidence, the following documents were marked as exhibited.

(i)

Exh. C-7 is the joining form of the Second Party.

(ii)

Exh. C-8 is the copy of notice dated 24/09/2014 given to the First Party bank by the Second Party‘s Advocate.

(iii) Exh. C-9 is the copy of reply dated 23/12/2014 given by the First Party to the Second Party‘s notice dated

24/09/2014.

(iv) Exh. C-10 is the copy of representation dated 30/10/2015 submitted by the First Party to the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Pune.

(v)

Exh. C-11 to C-17 are the copies of letter dated 20/06/2013, 12/06/2013, 16/09/2013, 18/02/2014, 25/02/2014,

27/05/2014 and 23/06/2014 issued by the First Party to the Second Party.

10]

The Second Party has closed his oral evidence on preliminary issues by filing pursis below Exh. U-15.

11]

The First Party examined Mr. Dharirao Annasaheb Ghadage, Chief Manager below Exh. C-26. He was duly

cross-examined by the Learned Advocate for the Second Party.

12]

The First Party closed its oral evidence on preliminary issues by filing pursis below Exh. C-28.

13]

I have heard the Learned Advocates for the parties. They are argued as per materials on record.

14]

The Learned Advocate for the second party submitted that the Second Party was working as Clerk cum

customer service officer. His appointment letter is filed at Exh. U-8. The nature of his work that he was performing is

mentioned in his affidavit of evidence. ICICI is nationalized bank, therefore, the provisions of Central Act applies to

it. The Regional office of five districts i.e. Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur, Pune and Solapur is in Pune. The present

reference has been referred by the Central Government under section 10(1), 2nd proviso which states that the

Government is the competent to refer a dispute with respect to Central Government to a Labour Court where the

appropriate Government is the State Government. In the present case, the Ministry of Delhi had sent the present

dispute to this Court for adjudication, hence, a competent authority has sent the dispute to this Court, therefore, this

Court has territorial jurisdiction to decide the same. The present reference has proper parties and there is no mis

joinder of the parties. The Second Party was orally terminated in the reply to the notice of the First Party stated that

his employment had ceased but in their written statement they have taken a defence of abandonment of service, they

have not issued any relieving order. The documents filed below Exh. C-12 to C-17 were not communicated to the

Second Party. They were not sent through email. There is no acknowledgment that the Second Party had received it.

The copies of cheques filed at Exh. C-25 does not have any sign of the Second Party on it. No loans were sanctioned

when he was in service. No sanction papers are filed on record. In the cross-examination of the First Party‘s witness,

the witness stated that the Second Party was reporting to the branch manager, no employee is working under the

control of the Second Party. He was not aware of the Second Party‘s signature. No charge-sheet was issued to the

Second Party for remaining absent. No enquiry was conducted. He has therefore prayed that the preliminary issues be

decided in favour of the Second Party. He has filed on record the authorities below Exh. U-18 and U-19 as follows :-

(i) Carona Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Anand Manjunath Rao (alias B. Ananda) & Anr., 2018 II CLR 552;

(ii) S. K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra, in Civil 2659 of 1980, decided on 02/09/1983;

(iii) Gaurishankar Vishwakarma Vs. Eagle Spring Industries Pvt. Ltd., LAWS(BOM)-1987-9-81.

15]

Per contra, the Learned Advocate for the First Party submitted that during the cross-examination, the Second

Party stated that he does not know that he was terminated on 23/06/2014. He has not pleaded that he was

subsequently terminated by written order throughout during the case, he has stated that he was orally terminated in the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1907

year 2014. He has not challenged his written order, therefore, the present reference is not maintainable. Though he is

aware of his termination, he has not challenged the same. He has not given relieving letter and he was given only

experience certificate. Therefore, he has filed the present case. It shows that he has not challenged his termination. In

his demand, as per his legal notice, he has stated that he should be given relieving letter. He has not challenged his

appointment letter. He was last working at Sangli. Therefore, this Court in Pune does not have territorial jurisdiction.

The Second Party has not stated why he has made First Party Nos. 2 and 3 as party in the proceedings. First Party No.

1 is the company, it is legal entity and it can sue and it can be sued. The Second Party‘s services were not terminated.

He started remaining absent and failed to report for work. Hence, he has abandoned his services. He has not denied

the letters sent by the First Party to ask him to report for work. Though he is aware of his termination, he is still

challenging his oral termination. Therefore, the present reference is not maintainable and it is prayed that the

preliminary issues be decided in favour of the First Party. He has relied upon the authorities below Exh. C-29 as

follows –

(i) The Management of Indian Cable Co. Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Its Workmen, 1962 (4) FLR 444;

(ii) Chauharya Tripathi & Ors. Vs. L.I.C. of India & Ors., 2015 (146) FLR 4;

(iii) Globe Ground India Employees Union Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors., 2019 (161) FLR 927;

(iv) Indian Farmers Fertilizer Coop. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal I, Allahabad & Ors., (2002) 2 Supreme Court

Cases 544.

AS TO ISSUE NOS. 1 TO 4 :-

16]

Admittedly, the Second Party was working at Sangli when he was alleged terminated from the

services orally. Due to the same, the First Party has contended that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. It is

also their case that the present reference suffers from mis joinder of the parties, because the Second Party has made

CEO, Manager HR and Branch Manager, Sangli as parties in the present reference and no reason is stated for the

same. It is submitted that the First Party bank is legal person and it can sue and it can be sued. It is therefore submitted

that the present reference is not maintainable under section 2-A of the Act because the Second Party was not

dismissed/ discharged/ retrenched/ terminated and he has himself abandoned his services.

17]

In the present case, the dispute is referred to this Court by the order of reference sent by Section Officer of

Government of India / Ministry of Labour, New Delhi i.e. Central Government. In the said order of reference, it is

mentioned that the Central Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exist between the employers in

relation to the management of ICICI Bank Ltd and their workmen in respect of the matter specified in the schedule

and that the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication. Therefore, in exercise

of the powers conferred upon them under section 10 2(A) 1(d), the Central Government referred the said dispute for

adjudication to Labour Court, Pune, Maharashtra and it was stated that the Tribunal shall gave its award within the

period of three months. The schedule of dispute sent for adjudication is ―Whether Shri. Ravindra Madhukar Tarade is

a 'workman' ? If yes, then whether the action of the management of ICICI Bank in terminating his service on

24/06/2013 orally is justified ? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to ?‖

18]

Therefore, the Central Government had referred and sent the above said dispute to this Court in exercise of

their powers conferred upon them by section 10 2(A) 1(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, neither of

the parties have challenged the said order of reference. This Court will get jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute on the

basis of order of reference sent to it. In the present case, the said reference enables this Court to adjudicate the dispute.

Therefore, even though the Second Party had last worked at Sangli or that the Central Government had referred the

dispute, the same is irrelevant because the order of reference is not challenged. This Court cannot go into the aspect of

territorial jurisdiction as it has received the said order of reference from the Central Government, New Delhi and

hence, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. Further, as per the order of reference, the dispute is

between the Second Party and the management of ICICI Bank. Therefore, this Court cannot go into the issue of mis

joinder of the parties only because the Second Party has mentioned the three officers in his statement of claim. This

Court has only to see the parties mentioned in the order of reference. The First Party who appeared before this Court

is ICICI Bank and they have filed their written statement on behalf of the bank. Therefore, there is no mis joinder of

the parties. I therefore answer issue No. 1 in the affirmative, by holding that this Court has territorial jurisdiction. I

answer issue No. 2 in the negative, by holding that there is no mis joinder of the parties.

19]

The First Party has submitted that there is no dismissal / discharged / retrenchment or otherwise termination

of the Second Party. He has himself abandoned his services and absconded without permission of the bank. It is also

their case that he is not a 'workman' as he was drawing salary of more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the present

reference is not maintainable.

20]

Perusal of the statement of claim shows that the Second Party has pleaded that he was doing the clerical

nature of work. No employees were working under the supervision and control under him. He had never worked in

supervisory, administrative or managerial capacity. However, he has not specifically pleaded the exact predominant

nature of work.

1908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21]

In his affidavit of evidence below Exh. U-13 in para Nos. 2 and 5, he has mentioned as follows :-

मी प्रथम ृक्ष बॅंकेकडे क्लाकच म्पिणून कामास िोतो. मी बॅंकेमध्ये ग्रािकांना फाॅ मच भरण्यास मदत करणे, त्यांच्याकडून

अलेल्या रक्कमा स्ट्वीकारणे, तसेच अलेले चेक क्लीऄरींगसा ी वररष्ांकडे देणे, तसेच ग्रािकांना बॅंकेचे नवीन योजनेबाबत माजिती देणे,

तसेच ग्रािकांच्या समस्ट्या सोडजवण्यासा ी अलेले ऄजच वररष्ांकडे ृा जवणे आ. क्लेरीकल कामे करत िोतो. मला बॅंकेने नुसते ऑदफसर

ऄसे नावाृुरते ृद ददले िोते.

जनिाणी यु-८ ऄ.क्र. १ ला मला बॅंकेने ददलेला नेमणूक अदेि प्रत दाखल अिे. त्यास जनिाणी क्रमांक देण्यात यावा. त्यामध्ये

मला ऑदफसर म्पिणून बॅंकेमध्ये नेमले जाइल ऄसे नमूद केलेले अिे. मी बॅंकेमध्ये ऑदफसर म्पिणून कधीिी काम केलेले नािी. जनव्वळ

मला कामगार कायद्याचा अधार घेता येवू नये या वाइट िेतूने माझ्या नेमणूक अदेिामध्ये ऑदफसर ऄसा ईल्लेख केलेला अिे.

22]

The said contentions are not pleaded by him in his statement of claim. Therefore, without there being any

pleadings, the evidence cannot be considered.

23]

In his cross-examination below Exh. U-13, he admitted his appointment letter dated 24/12/2010. He also

admitted his offer of appointment letter dated 29/03/2011. They are at Exh. C-5 and C-6 respectively. As per the

appointment letter dated 29/03/2011, he was appointed as Trainee initially. It was also mentioned that on completion

of three months on the job training, the Second Party will be placed in the grade of officer in the bank. The Second

Party has admitted that he successfully completed on the job training and he has never complained to the bank that he

was wrongly designated as officer in his appointment letter after receipt of the same.

24]

With respect to his nature of work, in his cross-examination in para No. 13, he has admitted that his nature of

work was clerical like taking request from the customers, cross sell (mutual funds), policy, insurance. He admitted

that without his signature, the customer could not open their account in the bank. He has admitted that he never

informed the bank that his nature of work was clerical and he was designated as an officer. He admitted that he was

paid wages as per his post. He had right to conduct business with transaction limit of Rs.50,000/-. He volunteered

that he was allowed to do only the entry level work and final authority was with the Manager. He admitted that he was

given temporary power to do the entry in the system by the manager. He has not mentioned the same in his affidavit

of evidence. He stated that the leave forms were to be submitted in the computer system from the portal and team

leader used to sanction the leaves of the concerned employees. He admitted that he has not mentioned in his affidavit

that his post, wage and nature of work was lower than that of the team leader. He admitted that the branch where he

last worked was low cost branch and transaction limit of the said branch was Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. He stated

that he had not issued any loan while he was working in the bank. He admitted that he did not request the bank that

his work is not administrative or managerial.

25]

Even in the cross-examination of the First Party‘s witness, he has denied the suggestion that the Second Party

while working as customer service officer was doing the work relating to clerical such as filling forms, forwarding the

cheques for clearance, provide information to the customers about new schemes of the bank and placing before any

senior any issue relating to customers. It is pertinent to note that there are no pleadings with respect to the same in his

statement of claim that he was doing the said work. He had also denied the suggestion that the Second Party falls

within the definition of 'workman'.

26]

Therefore, the Second Party has given some admissions in his cross-examination with respect to his

appointment as an officer in the bank, that he never complained about the said post to the bank, he had the power to

do transaction of Rs.50,000/-, the branch where he had worked branch was low cost branch and the transaction limit

was Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. He has admitted that his signature was required to open any account of the

customer, he was reporting to the bank manager. The manager had given temporary power to him to make entry in the

system and that powers were never changed while he was working in the bank. Therefore, he had some power to take

independent decision on behalf of the bank. As stated above, what was the exact nature of duties that he was

performing are not pleaded by him in his statement of claim. Though he has stated that he was working as Clerk and

doing clerical nature of duties, however, his appointment letter shows his appointment as an officer and there is no

evidence on record which could point and highlight that his nature of duties were clerical. In fact, it appears that they

were managerial and administrative in nature.

27]

As per the settled position of law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.R.Adyanthaya and

Ors. Vs. Sandoz India Ltd. & Ors., 1994 (4) SCC 1964, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para No. 24 as

follows :-

24.

We thus have three three – Judge Bench decisions which have taken the view that a person to be

qualified to be a workman must be doing the work which falls in any of the four categories, namely manual,

clerical, supervisory or technical and two two- Judge Bench decisions which have by referring one or other of

the said three decisions have reiterated the said law. As against this, we have three three- Judge Bench

decision which have without referring to the decision in May and Bakerl, WIMCO and Burmah Shell cases

have taken the other view which was expressly negatived, namely, if a person does not fall within the four

exceptions to the said definition he is a 'workman' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1909

These decisions are also based on the facts found in those cases. They have, therefore, to be confined to those

facts. Hence, the position in law as it obtains today is that a person to be a 'workman' under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 must be employed to do the work of any of the categories, namely, manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory. It is not enough that he is not covered by either of the

four exceptions to the definition. We reiterate the said interpretation.

28]

Therefore, as per the above said ratio, the person to be defined as a ‗workman‘ has to show that he is covered

in the inclusive definition of 'workman' and it is not enough to show that he is not covered by the exclusion clause. In

the present case also the Second Party has only pleaded about the duties that he was not performing, however, what

were the duties that he was performing are not pleaded. He has not pleaded nor led evidence to prove that he was

doing the work of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory. Therefore, the authorities

filed by him below Exh. U-18 and U-19 are therefore not help of him, because he has failed to prove his exact nature

of duties so as to place in the definition of 'workman'. Therefore, since the Second Party has failed to prove that he is

a 'workman' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence, I answer issue No. 4 in the negative.

29]

It is the case of the First Party that they have not terminated the Second Party‘s services and he has himself

abandoned his work. During the cross-examination of the Second Party, he stated that he had sent legal notice dated

24/09/2014 to the bank and they have replied on 23/12/2014. The said notice and reply are Exh. C-8 and C-9. If the

said reply is seen, the First Party has contended therein that the Second Party has continuously remained absent on

duty from 20/05/2014. He was sent letter dated 27/05/2014 about his unauthorized absence. He was also advised to

resume his duties immediately, but he did not resume duties and another letter sent by the bank on 05/06/2014 advised

him to resume his duties. It is the contention of the Second Party that he was orally terminated on 23/06/2014. In his

cross-examination, however, he stated that he had not gone in the bank to resume on duty from the period from May-

2014 to September-2014. If he had not gone to the bank during this three months then on what basis is he contending

that he was orally terminated on 23/06/2014. He was shown letters at Exh. C-10 dated 30/10/2015, letter dated

20/06/2013 Exh. C-11, letter dated 18/02/2014 at Exh. C-14, letter dated 25/02/2014 at Exh. C-15, letter dated

27/05/2014 at Exh. C-16, letter dated 23/06/2014 at Exh. C-17. The letters at Exh. C-11, C-14, C-15, C-16 and C-17

are all the letters which were sent by the First Party to the Second Party with respect to his unauthorized absenteeism

from 03/06/2013, 07/09/2013, 10/02/2014 and 20/05/2014. The Second Party has contended that he has not received

those letter, however, he admitted that he received the letter at Exh. C-13 i.e. 16/09/2013. If the said letter is perused,

it shows that the First Party had stated that the Second Party was unauthorized absent from duty since 07/09/2013 and

he was advised to resume duty immediately at his place of posting along-with reasons for his absence. The Second

Party has not pleaded about the said letter or even about the steps that he had taken after receipt of the letter. Whether

he had joined his services or whether he had taken steps to approach the First Party to allow him to join duty. In his

cross-examination, he has admitted that he has regularly worked with the First Party till May-2014 and he had taken

medical leave from 11/05/2014. Considering the First Party‘s applications as above sent to the Second Party, it

appears that the Second Party had remained absent and therefore, the First Party had sent him those letters. Even on

receipt of one of such letter which is filed at Exh. C-13, he had not approached the bank to allow him to resume the

duty. He had also not filed any application before the Court even when the First Party in their written statement

pleaded that they had not terminated his services and that he has himself abandoned his services. Therefore, I am of

the view that there was no termination per se of the Second Party as on 23/06/2014 as alleged by him and it appears

that he has abandoned his services at that time. In fact, he had admitted that when he had called the HR in the month

of July-2014, he came to know that his services were terminated by letter dated 23/06/2014. Therefore, he was aware

in the months of July-2014 only that he was orally terminated and they were terminated by letter dated 23/06/2014, it

shows that there was no oral termination on 23/06/2014. Another important factor is that as per the roder of reference,

this Court has to adjudicate whether there was any termination on 24/06/2013. In the present case, there are no

pleadings with respect to termination dated 24/06/2013. He has admitted that he was working with the First Party till

May-2014. Therefore, it appears that there was no termination dated 24/06/2013. Therefore, the reference fails. It is

not maintainable. I therefore answer issue No. 3 in the negative. Accordingly, the following award is passed.

AWARD

(a)

The reference is hereby answered in the negative as it is not maintainable because the Second Party is not a

'workman' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(b)

No order as to costs.

(c)

Copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Authority / Government for necessary information and action

as per rules.

T. A. SAWANT, Presiding Officer

1910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 763.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मुंबइ ृोटच रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ- 2 ds iapkV (20/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 31011/01/2019- vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 20/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port

Trust and their workmen.

[No. L-31011/01/2019- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/20 of 2019

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MUMBAI PORT TRUST.

The Chairman,

Mumbai Port Trust,

Port Bhawan, S.V. Marg,

Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

(MbPT DOCK & GENERAL EMPLOYEES’ UNION)

The General Secretary,

Mumbai Port Trust,

Dock & General Employees‘ Union,

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan,

Nawab Tank Road,

Mazgaon,

Mumbai 400 010.

APPEARANCES:

Party No. 1

:

Ms. Sarita

Advocate

i/b Bangale & Associates.

Party No. 2

:

Mr. V. Randive.

Representative

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1911

AWARD

(Delivered on 19-03-2025)

1.

This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-31011/01/2019 (IR(B-II)) dated 20.02.2019. The terms

of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

`Whether the demand of Union Mumbai Port Trust, Dock & General Employees’ Union for regularization of

Shri. Sanjay Kumar and 24 other (List enclosed as, Annexure-C) in the services of Mumbai Port Trust w.e.f.

their date of appointment since 1996, on the analogy of the regular employees at Atithi Guest House,

Colaba, Mumbai, is fair, just and legal? If so, what relief these employees are entitled to?`

List of contract workmen working at Evelyn House since 1996

1.

Sanjay Kumar

2.

Nitin A Pawar

3.

Vinod Mayekar

4.

Dilip Mahale

5.

Rahul Patil

6.

Mandar Nimbre

7.

Sanjay Pawar

8.

Sachin Wankhede

9.

Sadguru Adarkar

10.

Pradeep Warde

11.

S. N. Abbas

12.

Aditya Kumar

13.

Amrish Kanojiya

14.

Jokhim Tigga

15.

Pratap Kanojiya

16.

Prashant Dash

17.

Nitin Chandra

18.

Rajesh Kumar

19.

Vinod Kanojiya

20.

Manoj Kanojiya

21.

Sanjay Ekka

22.

Vijay Singh

23.

S. P. Yadav

24.

Suresh Pandey

25.

Shankar Sharma

2.

The Secretary of the Mumbai Port Trust, Dock & General Employees‘ Union, without filing any statement of

claim in the matter has filed pursis and thereby informed that, the contractual workmen involved in the Reference are

not available and not giving any response and due to this reason, no cause of action remained in the present matter

therefore they are withdrawing the present proceedings with free will. The counsel for the First Party has given no

objection for withdrawal of the Reference.

In view of this, the Reference is disposed off as withdrawn. The Second Party is not entitled for any relief

mentioned in the Reference order. The proceeding is closed.

Hence, I pass the following order-

ORDER

i. The Reference is answered in the negative.

ii. The Second Party is not entitled for relief as prayed.

iii. No order as to costs.

iv. The copy of Award be sent to the Government.

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

1912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 764.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मेससच न्िावा िेवा आंटरनेिनल कंटेनर टर्षमनल प्राआवेट जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ- 2 ds iapkV (08/2018)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 34025/04/2017-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.08/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/S. NHAVA

SHEVA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINIAL PVT. LTD and their workmen.

[No. L-34025/04/2017- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/08 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

1. M/S. NHAVA SHEVA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD.

The Chief Executive Officer,

M/s. Nhava Sheva International

Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd.

Operation Centre, JNPT Sheva,

Navi Mumbai 400 707.

2. M/S. D.B. & CO.

The Proprietor,

M/s. D.B. Co..

103, A-wing,

Saikiran Apartment,

Karanja Road, Uran,

Dist: Raigad (Maharashtra) – 400 702.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

(TRANSPORT & DOCK WORKERS UNION)

The Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

P.D. Mello Bhavan,

P.D. Mello Road,

Caranc Bunder,

Mumbai 400 038.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1913

APPEARANCES:

First Party No. 1 :

Mr. R.P. Gawde &

Mr. G.S. Desai.

Representative

First Party No. 2

No appearance.

Party No. 2

:

Mr. A.M. Koyande.

Advocate

AWARD

(Delivered on 27-02-2025)

1.

This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section

(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of

Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-34025/04/2017-IR(B-II) dated 15.02.2018. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows:

`Whether the action of M/s. D.B. & Co. (Contractor) and M/s. Nhava Sheva International Container

Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (Principal Employer) in not entertaining 28 points Charter of Demands dated 20.06.2016

served by the Transport & Dock Workers` Union for the period from 01.04.2016 in respect of 36 workmen

seeking wage revision ad fringe benefits is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?`

2.

Read application filed by the First Party No. 1. Perused the say given on behalf of the Second Party. Heard the

parties.

It appears that, the Reference is very old and inspite of opportunities, the Second Party has not filed

statement of claim. Today also the Second Party is not present and his counsel in his say given an application stated

that, he has no instruction. In such circumstances and in absence of the Second Party, the Reference is disposed off

for want of prosecution. The Second Party is not entitled for any relief of the First Party present before the court. No

order as to costs. The proceeding is closed.

Hence, I pass the following Order-

ORDER

i. The Reference is answered in the negative.

ii. The Second Party is not entitled for relief as prayed.

iii. No order as to costs.

iv. The copy of Award be sent to the Government.

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 765.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a33/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/330/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.33/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/330/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

1914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 33/2002

Between:

Sri K. Ilaiah,

S/o Siddiahm,

H.No. 2-108, Nacharam (V),

Uppal(M),

Hyderabad-500 076.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/330/2001-IR(B.I) dated

19.12.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide

the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri K. Ilaiah, Temporary/Non-.Messenger, SBI with effect from 31.3.1997 is

justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 33/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and

the management.

2.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved

Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and

set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of

India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their

termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises.

This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was

challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The

aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of

Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased

to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1915

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated

20.3.019.

3.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,

the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Non-Messenger from 1985 to 1997, and has

rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 12 years. The Respondent has terminated services of

Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent

bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by

wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4.

That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5.

The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and

the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

1916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement

(Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement

(Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6).

In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these

settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of

the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in

the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide

hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is

needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated

16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were

specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted

to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel

and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P. It is

specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement

and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High

court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It

also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High

Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the

directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of

the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a

settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid

upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the

basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide

impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable

expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the

settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and

31 3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who

are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said

action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court

and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General

Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as

illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as

violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to

absorb them in service.

8.

Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has

submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of

circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.

It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had

engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or

of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the

employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend

under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit

would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is

a facet of unfair labour practice.

9.

The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by

entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than

240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management

so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1917

that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be

eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect

of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered

into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management

1918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the

empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent

letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing

of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to

engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It

was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies

till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management

terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of

natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental

and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1919

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also examined Sri C. Ganesh as

WW2 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W12. Further, the Workman

has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

1920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W1 is the caste certificate. Further, Ex.W2 is the transfer certificate. Ex.W3 is the service certificate. Ex.W4 is

service certificate. Further, Ex.W5 is intimation for interview which has nothing to do with the proof of working

days. Further, Ex.W6 to Ex.W11 are service certificates. Ex. W12 is a letter from ALC(C) to the Petitioner to

attend for further discussions. Ex.W13 is the conciliation proceedings.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Aluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Nacharam branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri K. Ilaiah, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I-: Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,

minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947

read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1921

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

1922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide

5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has

negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as

individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the

Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he

was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent

post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India

State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard

non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant

case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the

panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post

likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in

view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under

Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1923

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

1924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter

VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240

days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

engagement as night watchman in the branch. Further witness states, ―It is true that I did not work continuously. I

used to work depending upon the availability of work in the branch.‖

―It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in any branch.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12

months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1925

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in

regular vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the

5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank

of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge

the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I applied for appointment as messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in terms of the

settlements entered by the bank and the union. Further, witness states, the panel was prepared basing upon the

number of days of service put in by the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were

included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. He is not

aware of the lapse of settlements. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person

who worked number of days than me was given appointment.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1927

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

1928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either

in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1929

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H

of the Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

1930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri K. Ilaiah, Ex.Non- Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 15th day of April, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri K. Ilaiah

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

WW2: Sri C. Ganesh

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Caste certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of transfer certificate

Ex.W3: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W4: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W5:

Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W6:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W7:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W9:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W10:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W11:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W12:

Photocopy of notice of conciliation

Ex.W13:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1931

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12:

Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 766.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a17/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/387/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/387/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of March, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 17/2002

Between:

Sri R. Sunil Kumar,

H.No.6-3-1185/113/1,

Bolashenkar Mektha,

Begumpet,

Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

1932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/387/2000-IR(B.I) dated

11.12.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide

the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri R. Sunil Kumar, Temporary/Non-.Messenger,SBI with effect from

31.3.1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID 17/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the

management.

2.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the

aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ

petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State

Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to

their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy

arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch

petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of

2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal

was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement

dated 20.3.019.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1933

3.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,

the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Non-Messenger from 1988 to 1997, and has

rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 9 years. The Respondent has terminated services of

Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent

bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by

wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4.

That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5.

The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and

the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

6.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement

(Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement

(Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6).

In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these

settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of

the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in

the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope

that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is

needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated

16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were

specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted

to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel

and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is

specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement

and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High

court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It

also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High

Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the

directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of

the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a

settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid

upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the

basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide

impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable

expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the

settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and

31 3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who

1934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said

action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court

and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General

Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as

illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as

violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to

absorb them in service.

8.

Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has

submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of

circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.

It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had

engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or

of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the

employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend

under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit

would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is

a facet of unfair labour practice.

9.

The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by

entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than

240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management

so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned

that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be

eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect

of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered

into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1935

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.The management

has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the

empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent

letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing

of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to

engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It

was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies

till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management

terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of

natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental

and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

1936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1937

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W12. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support

of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with

the Respondent branch as water boy for total 58 days this certificate was issued on 19.5.1989. Further, Ex.W2 is

the advertisement and Ex.W3 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days.

Ex.W4 is another certificate issued by the Branch Manager dated 26.6.1991 according to this certificate Workman Sri

Sunil Kumar has worked for a total of 177 days. Further, Ex.W5 is a letter dated 25.6.1991 and according to this

letter the Workman Sri Sunil Kumar was appointed as a temporary messenger at the branch office for a period of 59

days with effect from 25.6.1991 to 9.7.1991. Further Ex.W6 is the letter dated 29.5.1992 according to this letter the

name of the Workman Sri R. Sunil Kumar was included in the panel under non-messenger category. Further, Ex.W7

goes to show that the Workman was appointed as a temporary sweeper in the Respondent branch and period was

extended for the 1.7.1992 to 31.7.1992. Similarly Ex.W8 is the memorandum issued by AGM to the Workman for

appointment as a sweeper for a period of one month from 1.6.1992 to 30.6.1992. Ex.W9 and W10 also goes to show

that the certificate of proof of working days of Workman has been issued and as per Ex.W9 Workman has had

worked from October, 92 to May, 93 for 199 days and as per Ex.W10 Workman has worked from 16.6.94 to 31.12.94

for total period of 198 days. Ex.W11 is illegible copy of the notification issued by the Respondent management. Ex.

W12 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch

Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Alluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

1938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement

dated 27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into

between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also

Memorandum of Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Nacharam branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri R.Sunil Kumar, a Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,

minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947

read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1939

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

1940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide

5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has

negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as

individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the

Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he

was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent

post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India

State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard

non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant

case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the

panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post

likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in

view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1941

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter

VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240

days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

1942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection as temporary non

messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the availability of work in the

branch.‖

―It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in a single branch.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12

months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1943

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular

vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the

5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank

of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge

the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

1944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I applied for appointment as non-messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1989.

Further, witness states, the panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary

employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. He is not aware of the settlements. Further witness

states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was

given appointment in the bank.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1945

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on

31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the

scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

1946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H

of the Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1947

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri R. Sunil Kumar, Ex.Non-Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 24th day of March, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

1948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri R. Sunil Kumar

MW1: Sri Alluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement

Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W4: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W5: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W6: Photocopy of lr. dt.29.5.1992 showing WW1 name in the panel under non-messenger category.

Ex.W7: Photocopy of temporary sweeper appointment letter

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Memorandum issued to Workman for appointment as Sweeper for one month

Ex.W9: Photocopy of proof of working days

Ex.W10: Photocopy of proof of working days

Ex.W11: Photocopy of illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent

Ex.W12: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 767.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a52/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/256/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1949

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 767.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/256/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 52/2002

[Old ID No.144/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

Sri Karnati Srinivas,

H.No.2-3-18/9, Tulasi Nagar Colony,

Nr. Golnaka Stop, Amberpet Road,

Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/256/2000-IR(B.I) dated

16.10.2000 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to Industrial Tribunal No.I,

Hyderabad for adjudication and later the same has been transferred to this Tribunal bearing ID No.144/2000, as per

orders of Central Government vide Lr.No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C.II) dated 18.10.2001, requiring this forum to decide

the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri Karnati Srinivas, Temp. .Messenger,SBI by way of oral order

w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the Workman is entitled?‖

After receipt, it was numbered as ID No. 52/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved

1950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and

set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of

India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their

termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises.

This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was

challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The

aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of

Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was

pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated

20.3.019.

3.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,

the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1986 to 1997, and has rendered

unblemished service spreading over a period of about 12 years. The Respondent has terminated services of

Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent

bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by

wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4.

That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5.

The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and

the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1951

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

6.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement

(Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement

(Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In

between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these

settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of

the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in

the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide

hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is

needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated

16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were

specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted

to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel

and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is

specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement

and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High

court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It

also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High

Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the

directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of

the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a

settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid

upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the

basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide

impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable

expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the

settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and

31 3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who

are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said

action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court

and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General

Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as

illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as

violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to

absorb them in service.

8.

Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has

submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of

circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.

It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had

engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or

of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the

employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend

under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit

would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is

a facet of unfair labour practice.

1952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9.

The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by

entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than

240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management

so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned

that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be

eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect

of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered

into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1953

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.The management

has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the

empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent

letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing

of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to

engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It

was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies

till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management

terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of

natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental

and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

1954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1955

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W13. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support

of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the notification. Further, Ex.W2 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this

document the Workman has worked with the Respondent branch for total 82 days this certificate was issued on

19.3.1997. Ex.W3 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W4 is

panel list. Ex.W5 to W11 are service certificates issued by the Respondent bank. Ex. W12 is notification through

Employment Exchange for appointments. Ex.W13 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager

for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections

strictly.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Aluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Nacharam branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri Karnati Srinivas, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,

minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947

read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

1956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1957

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide

5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has

negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as

individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the

Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he

was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent

post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India

State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard

non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant

case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the

panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post

likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in

view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

1958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1959

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and

Chapter VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240

days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

engagement as temporary non messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending

upon the availability of work in the branch.‖

―It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in any branch.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12

months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

1960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular

vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1961

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th

Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of

India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the

same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

1962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I applied for appointment as messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union in the

year 1989. Further, witness states, the panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by the

temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. He is not aware of the settlements. Further witness

states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was

given appointment in the bank.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1963

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either

in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

1964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H

of the Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1965

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri Karnati Srinivas, Ex.Non-Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 17th day of April, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Karnati Srinivas

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W4: Photocopy of panel list

Ex.W5:Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W7: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W9:Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W10: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W11:Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W12:Photocopy of notification through Employment Exchange

Ex.W13:Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999.

1966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 768.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a42/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/232/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 42/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and theirworkmen.

[No. L-12012/232/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 16th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 42/2002

[Old ID No.133/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

Sri C.S.Vijaya Kumar,

16/411, Old Town,

Anantapur,

Distt. Anantpur -515 001.

… Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1967

And

The Dy.General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupathi – 517502

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/232/2000-IR(B.I) dated 29.9.2000

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Anantapur in terminating the

services of Sri C.S.Vijaya Kumar, Temporary/Non-.Messenger,SBI with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified

or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 42/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and

the management. Earlier this dispute has been referred to Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad for adjudication and

later as per orders of Central Government vide Lr.No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C.II) dated 18.10.2001, the same has been

transferred to this Tribunal bearing ID No.133/2000.

2.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the

aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ

petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State

Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to

their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy

arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch

petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of

2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal

was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

1968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated

20.3.019.

3.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,

the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1988 to 1989, and has rendered

unblemished service spreading over a period of about 2 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman

by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided

to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them

by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4.

That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5.

The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and

the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

6.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement

(Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement

(Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In

between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these

settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of

the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in

the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide

hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is

needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated

16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were

specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted

to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel

and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P..It is

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1969

specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement

and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High court

of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also

directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High Court also

recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions

given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the

agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a

settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid

upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the

basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide

impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable

expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the

settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and

31 3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who

are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said

action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court

and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General

Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as

illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as

violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to

absorb them in service.

8.

Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has

submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of

circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.

It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had

engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or

of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the

employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend

under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit

would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is

a facet of unfair labour practice.

9.

The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by

entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than

240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management

so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned

that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be

eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect

of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered

into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

1970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.

The

management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving

chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent

Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,

subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,

the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for

absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the

Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of

the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,

violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman

and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1971

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered

into thereon.

1972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W4. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of

his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with

the Respondent branch for total 46 days. Further, Ex.W2 is the notification and Ex.W3 is the intimation for

interview which has nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W4 is another certificate issued by the Branch

Manager according to this certificate Workman Sri C.S. Vijaya Kumar has worked for a total of 641 days.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Aluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1973

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Nacharam branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri C.S.Vijaya Kumar, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:-

Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and

30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed

between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of

I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

1974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1975

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide

5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has

negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as

individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the

Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he

was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent

post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India

State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard

non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant

case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the

panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post

likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in

view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

1976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter

VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1977

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240

days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

appointment as a temporary attender.‖ Further witness states, ―I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire

service in the bank.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12

months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

1978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular

vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the

5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank

of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge

the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1979

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I applied in response to an advertisement issued by the bank. Further, witness states, the panel was prepared

basing upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees

whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the

panel. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of

days than me was given appointment in the bank.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

1980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either

in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1981

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

1982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:-In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri C.S.Vijaya Kumar, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 16th day of April, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1983

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri C.S.Vijaya Kumar

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement

Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W4: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W5:Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W6:Photocopy of lr. dt.29.5.1992 showing WW1 name in the panel under non-messenger category.

Ex.W7: Photocopy of temporary sweeper appointment letter

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Memorandum issued to Workman for appointment as Sweeper for one month

Ex.W9:Photocopy of proof of working days

Ex.W10:Photocopy of proof of working days

Ex.W11:Photocopy of illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent

Ex.W12:Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 769.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a41/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 39025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-09]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

1984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd May,, 2025

S.O. 769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.41/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2025- IR(B-II)-09]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 12th day of March, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 41/2022

Between:

Sri Yenneti Appa Rao,

S/o Ramulu, Block No. 25,

House No. 5, Rajeev Gruhakalpa,

80 Feet Road, Srikakulam.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Director,

Union Rural Self Employment Training Institute,

Union Bank of India, Etcherla, Srikakulam-532001.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: Dr. K Lakshmi Narasimha & B. Kiran Kumar, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its F.No. 7/1/2022-B1 dated 11.02.2022 referred the

following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s Union Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Union Rural Self Employment Training Institute, Union Bank of

India, Srikakulam in terminating the services of Sri Yanneti Appa Rao, Ex-Night Watchman without complying the

provisions of Section 25 (F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 41/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for exparte Evidence. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded

Petitioner remained absent and none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any substantiated

evidence by Petitioner, the case is dismissed and a ‗No Claim‘ award is passed.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 12th day of

March, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1985

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 770.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a52/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/386/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/386/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. No. 52/2001

Between:

Sri B. Ramesh,

S/o B. Rajaiah,

H.No.8-3-430/9, Ambedkar Nagar Colony,

Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

….. Respondent

1986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/386/2000-IR(B.I) dated 26.6..2001

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri B. Ramesh, Temporary/Non-.Messenger, SBI with effect from 31.3.1997 is

justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 52/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and

the management.

2.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the

aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ

petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State

Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to

their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy

arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch

petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of

2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal

was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement

dated 20.3.019.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1987

3.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,

the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Non-Messenger from 1988 to 1997, and has

rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 9 years. The Respondent has terminated services of

Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent

bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by

wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4.

That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the

Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were

listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have

completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed

minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate

temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5.

The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and

the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.

Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the

suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the

selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be

valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no

temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from

amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that

consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for

responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was

held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to

be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is

mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was

entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary

employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the

years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the

panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have

been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.

6.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement

(Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex

M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In

between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these

settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of

the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in

the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide

hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is

needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated

16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were

specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted

to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel

and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is

specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement

and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High

court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It

also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High

Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the

directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of

the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a

settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid

upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the

basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide

impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable

expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the

settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and

31 3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who

1988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said

action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court

and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General

Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as

illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as

violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to

absorb them in service.

8.

Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has

submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of

circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.

It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had

engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or

of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the

employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend

under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit

would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is

a facet of unfair labour practice.

9.

The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,

16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90

stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to

recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by

entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than

240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management

so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned

that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be

eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect

of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered

into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the

settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)

that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary

employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.

The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide

permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time

exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen

covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons

who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the

Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees

who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only

broad guidelines and not directives".

10.

The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a

clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to

a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement

in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management

to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein

as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management

has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is

submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued

the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for

absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in

Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1989

should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,

unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.

The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they

have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for

absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms

of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized

and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the

liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall

implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the

Constitution of India.

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.

The

management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving

chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent

Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,

subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,

the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for

absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the

Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of

the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,

violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman

and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

1990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less

than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the

Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it

is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1991

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore

misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the

settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the

Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed

and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special

Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is

of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements cannot be

relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play. Further,

the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts.

Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W13. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support

of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the advertisement/notification. Further, Ex.W2 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with

the proof of working days. and Ex.W3 to Ex.W11 are service certificates showing that he has worked for a total

period of 1428 days. Ex.W3 is for 88 days, Ex.W4 is the certificate showing that he has worked as temporary

messenger from 3.7.1990 to 30.9.1990, Ex.W5 is another certificate issued by the Branch Manager dated 8.7.1993

according to this certificate Workman Sri B. Ramesh has worked for a total of 200 days. Further, Ex.W6 is a letter

dated 18.10.1994 and according to this letter the Workman Sri B. Ramesh has worked as a temporary messenger at

the branch office for a period of 193 days with effect from 7.8.1993 to 19.2.1994. Further Ex.W7 is the letter dated

1.10.1994 according to this letter the Workman Sri B. Ramesh has worked for 192 days from 22.3.1994 to 30.9.1994.

Further Ex.W8 is the letter dated 17.6.1996 according to this letter the Workman Sri B. Ramesh has worked for 200

days from 22.10.1994 to 10.5.1995. Further Ex.W9 is the letter dated 17.6.1996 according to this letter the

Workman Sri B. Ramesh has worked for 200 days from 1.12.95 to 18.6.96. Further Ex.W10 is the letter dated

7.1.1997 according to this letter the Workman Sri B. Ramesh has worked for 190 days from 2.7.1996 to 7.1.97.

Further Ex.W11 is the letter dated 3.9.97 according to this letter the Workman Sri B. Ramesh has worked for 76

days from 15.1.97 to 31.3.97. Ex. W12 is a notification of vacancies from Employment Exchange, dt. 8.4.1999.

Ex.W13 is the circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch

Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Alluru Rama Rao and this witness has

exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement

dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.

27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-

Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of

Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22.

Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various

judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in

this Award.

1992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both

the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I.

Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, S.I.B. Saifabad branch, in terminating the services of

Workman Sri Bandaru Ramesh, a Temporary/Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is

justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:-

Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and

30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed

between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of

I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1993

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

1994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide

5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has

negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as

individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the

Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he

was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent

post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India

State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard

non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant

case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the

panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post

likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in

view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

27.

Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his

services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any

preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman

has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on

31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on

merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1995

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of

termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by

adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of

decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..‖

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and

Chapter VA.‖

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies

upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from

the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the

contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29.

Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,

we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of

240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

1996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

appointment as a temporary Attendar. It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service.‖

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any

12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,

Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the

Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in

contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the

Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman

had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any

document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the

Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was

terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective

seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that

no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the

very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has

indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the

argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order

dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there

was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/

temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.

Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of

the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240

days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32.

Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of

India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised

by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily

wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary

appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make

temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been

terminated from service by this order.

33.

Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in

respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any

temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no

temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any

deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been

terminated from service by this order.

34.

Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by

DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has

been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent

is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager

for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for

engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work

from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon

the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent

management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank

cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory

condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and

25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35.

Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the

selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements

and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in

the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1997

has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but

same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure

of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the

Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month

of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating

the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued

are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but

not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled

candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular

vacancies.

36.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was

arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the

Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would

be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from

both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute

is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed

between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter

may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the

5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank

of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge

the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

1998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms

agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent

appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees

were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel

would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent

management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The

workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman

herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being

junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39.

In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross

examination the witness WW1 states:-

―I applied in response to an advertisement issued by the bank as per settlement entered between the bank and the

union.

Further, witness states, the panels were prepared basing on the number of days of service put in by the temporary

employees. Some of the employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the

bank in order of their seniority in the panel.

Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who had worked for less number of

days than me was given appointment in the bank.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of

various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was

prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself

admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any

person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the

allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of

the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,

there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily

wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no

evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in

order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40.

However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the

Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention

of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to

provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on

31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any

authority.

41.

In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

1999

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either

in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act.‖

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

2001

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned

will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the

statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included

in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be

given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in

accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,

number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner

was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for

appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary

service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.

Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels

and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such

employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the

counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on

31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.

Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were

expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no

termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the

available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the

date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in

the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for

absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not

established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48.

Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not

entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri B. Ramesh, Temporary/Non-Messenger, SBI by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified.

Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit,

hence, dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 15th day of April, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

2002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri B. Ramesh

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photocopy of News paper advertisement

Ex.W2:

Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W3:

Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W4:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W5:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W6:

Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W7:

Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W9:

Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W10:

Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W11:

Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W12:

Photocopy of notification of Employment Exchange

Ex.W13:

Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नइ ददल्ली, 5 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 771.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मेससच मां कंस्ट्रक्िन ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a25/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-59]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 10, 2025/वैिाख 20, 1947

2003

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2025

S.O. 771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 25/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Maa

Construction their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-59]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 25 OF 2023

PARTIES: Umesh Thakur.

Vs.

Management of M/s. Maa Construction.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workman :

Mr. Anirban Mukherjee, Advocate.

For the Management :

Mr. Biswajit Bandyopadhyay, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Construction

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

05.06.2024.

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of the

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, vide its Order No. 1(3)/2023/E dated 23.03.2023 has been

pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of M/s. Maa Construction and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the M/s. Maa Construction (Contractor) in terminating the service of Shri Umesh

Thakur, Contract Labour w.e.f. 01/09/2022 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Shri Umesh Thakur is

entitled there to? ”

1. On receiving Order No. 1(3)/2023/E dated 23.03.2023 from the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), Asansol, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute

Reference case No. 23 of 2023 was registered on 15.05.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties

through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in

support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

2. The case is fixed up today for appearance of Umesh Thakur and filing written statement by the dismissed

workman. On repeated call at 12.43 p.m. none appeared for M/s. Maa Construction. No step is taken on behalf of

Umesh Thakur. On a perusal of the record, it appears that M/s. Maa Construction filed their written statement on

27.09.2023.

3.

Umesh Thakur, petitioner had appeared in person on 25.08.2023, 27.09.2023, 03.11.2023 and was

represented by Mr. Anirban Mukherjee on 05.12.2023. On 29.01.2024 none appeared for the workman and no step

2004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2025/VAISAKHA 20, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was taken. Umesh Thakur was directed to show cause on 12.04.2024 as to why Industrial Dispute shall not be

dismissed for not filing written statement and for his non-appearance. Earlier order has not been complied and no step

has been taken by the dismissed employee. The case was fixed on 24.05.2024 but no step was taken by him.

4.

The workman is not found diligent in proceeding and has not filed his written statement after opportunities

provided to him. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Industrial Dispute raised by the

workman has failed due to his default and non-compliance. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

GORAKHA NATH YADAVA

Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH

YADAVA

Date: 2025.05.23 15:20:02 +05'30'