1509 GI/2026

(1323)

रजिस्ट्री 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 ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 9]

नई ददल् ली, मार्च 8—मार्च 14, 2026, िजनवार/फाल् गुन 17—फाल् गुन 23, 1947

No. 9]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 8—MARCH 14, 2026, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 17––PHALGUNA 23, 1947

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी िाती हज जिससे दक यह ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूर्नाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत् त मंत्रालय

(व् यय जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2026

का.आ. 287.—रािभाषा जनयम, 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के जनयम 10 के उृ जनयम

(4) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार, एतद् द्वारा भारतीय लेखाृरीक्षा और लेखा जवभाग के अंतगचत

प्रधान महालेखाकार का कायाचलय (लेखाृरीक्षा-II), कनाचटक, बेंगलूरु, जिसके 80 प्रजतित कार्ममकों ने हहदी का कायचसाधक

ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को अजधसूजर्त करती हज।

[फा. सं. ए-12034/02/2026-ईिी]

रामेश् वर कुमार, अवर सजर्व

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-11042026-271687

CG-DL-W-11042026-271687

1324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2026

S.O. 287.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for

Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of the Principal

Accountant General (Audit-II), Karnataka, Bengaluru under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, whereof

eighty per cent. of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. A-12034/02/2026-EG]

RAMESHWAR KUMAR, Under Secy.

जवदेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2026

का.आ. 288.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजधाजनक आदेि।

एतद् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार,मार्च 3, 2025 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवचहन करने के जलए भारतीय दूतावास, ररयाद में

सहायक कांसुलर अजधकाररयों के प ृ में इस मंत्रालय के जनम्नजलजखत अजधकाररयों की जनयुजि करता हज:

क्रम सं. अजधकारी का नाम और ृद

जमिन

/

ृोस्ट्ट जिसमें

सहायक कांसुलर अजधकारी के

प ृ में जनयुि दकया गया हज

1

श्री िसबीर हसह, कजनष्ठ सजर्वालय सहायक

भारतीय दूतावास, ररयाद

2

श्री सजर्न, कजनष्ठ सजर्वालय सहायक

3

श्री रहवदर, कजनष्ठ सजर्वालय सहायक

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2026(04)]

तरुण कुमार, अवर सजर्व [सीृीवी-II]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2026

S.O. 288.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned

officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Embassy of India, Riyadh, to perform Consular services

with effect from March 3, 2026:

S.

No

Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

1

Mr. Jasbir Singh, Junior Secretariat Assistant

Embassy of India, Riyadh

2

Mr. Sachin, Junior Secretariat Assistant

3

Mr. Ravinder, Junior Secretariat Assistant

[F. No. T.4330/01/2026 (04)]

TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy. (CPV-II)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1325

ृरमाणु ऊिाच जवभाग

मुंबई , 24 फरवरी, 2026

का.आ. 289.—सावचिजनक ृररसर (अनाजधकृत अजधभोजगयों की बेदखली) अजधजनयम, 1971 (1971 का 40) की

धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और इस जवभाग के ददनांक 25.06.1998 की अजधसूर्ना सं. 5/1(2)/95-

SUS/447 के अजधक्रमण में, केंद्र सरकार एतद् द्वारा जनम् नजलजखत ताजलका के कललम (1) में उजल्लजखत अजधकारी को, िो

सरकार का रािृजत्रत अजधकारी हज, उि अजधजनयम के प्रयोिन के जलए संृदा अजधकारी जनयुि करती हज, िो उि ताजलका के

कललम (2) में संगत प्रजवजियों में जनर्ददि सावचिजनक ृररसरों के संबंध में उि अजधजनयम द्वारा या उसके अधीन प्रदत्त िजियों

का प्रयोग करेगा और संृदा अजधकारी के कतचव्यों का ृालन करेगा।

अजधकारी का ृदनाम

(1)

सावचिजनक ृररसर की श्रेजणयााँ और अजधकार क्षेत्र की

स्ट्थानीय सीमाएाँ

(2)

जनदेिक (कार्ममक एवं प्रिासन) अथवा

मु्‍य प्रिासजनक अजधकारी,

जनमाचण, सेवा एवं संृदा प्रबंध जनदेिालय,

जवक्रम साराभाई भवन,

अणुिजि नगर,

मुंबई-400 094

बृहन् मुंबई और नई ददल्ली में ृरमाणु ऊिाच जवभाग के

स्ट्वाजमत्व वाले या उसके प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अधीन

ृररसर।

[फा. सं. 5/1(1)/2026-SUS/2386]

जबजृन कुप ृ, अवर सजर्व [सीृीवी-II]

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Mumbai, the 24th February, 2026

S.O. 289.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section-3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supercession of this Department‘s Notification No.5/1(2)/95-

SUS/447 dated 25.06.1998, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (1) of the

Table below being Gazetted Officers of the Government, to be the Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act who

shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer, by or under the said Act, in

respect of Public Premises specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Table.

Designation of the Officer

(1)

Categories of Public Premises and local limits of

Jurisdiction

(2)

Director (P&A) or

Chief Administrative Officer,

Directorate of Construction, Services & Estate

Management,

Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan,

Anushakti Nagar,

Mumbai-400 094

Premises belonging or under the administrative control of

the Department of Atomic Energy in Greater Mumbai &

New Delhi.

[F. No. 5/1(1)/2026-SUS/2386]

BIPIN KURUP, Under Secy. (CPV-II)

1326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ृेरोजलयम एवं प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2026

का.आ. 290.—तेल उद्योग (जवकास) अजधजनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) की धारा 3 की उृ-धारा (4) द्वारा

प्रदत्त िजियों के तहत, केंद्र सरकार एतद् द्वारा ृेरोजलयम एवं प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय के सजर्व डल. नीरि जमत्तल को 13

फरवरी, 2026 से अगले आदेि तक तेल उद्योग जवकास बोडच का अध्यक्ष जनयुि करती हज|

[फा. सं. िी-38011/41/2016-दफन.आई (ई-33886)]

रघुराम कृ्‍णा, अवर सजर्व

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2026

S.O. 290.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. Neeraj Mittal, Secretary,

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as Chairman of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 13. 02.2026, until

further orders.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.I (E-33886)]

REGHURAM KRISHNA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2026

का.आ. 291.—तेल उद्योग (जवकास) अजधजनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) की धारा 3 की उृ-धारा (3)(a) द्वारा

प्रदत्त िजियों के तहत, केंद्र सरकार एतद् द्वारा श्री श्रीकांत नागुलृल्ली, महाजनदेिक, हाइड्रोकाबचन महाजनदेिालय को 13

फरवरी, 2026 से 12 फरवरी, 2028 तक या अगले आदेि तक, िो भी ृहले हो, तेल उद्योग जवकास बोडच का सदस्ट्य

जनयुि करती हज।

[फा. सं. िी-38011/41/2016-दफन.आई (ई-33886)]

रघुराम कृ्‍णा, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2026

S.O. 291.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(a) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Srikant Nagulapalli, Directorate

General, Directorate General of Hydrocarbon as Members of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 13.02.2026

to 12.02.2028 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.I (E-33886)]

REGHURAM KRISHNA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2026

का.आ. 292.—तेल उद्योग (जवकास) अजधजनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) की धारा 3 की उृ-धारा (3)(b) द्वारा

प्रदत्त िजियों के तहत, केंद्र सरकार एतद् द्वारा श्री वेदवीर आयच, अजतररि सजर्व एवं जवत्तीय सलाहकार, ृेरोजलयम एवं

प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय को 13 फरवरी, 2026 से 12 फरवरी, 2028 तक या अगले आदेि तक, िो भी ृहले हो, तेल

उद्योग जवकास बोडच का सदस्ट्य जनयुि करती हज।

[फा. सं. िी-38011/41/2016-दफन.आई (ई-33886)]

रघुराम कृ्‍णा, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1327

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2026

S.O. 292.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) (b) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Vedveer Arya, Additional

Secretary & Financial Advisor, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as Members of the Oil Industry Development

Board w.e.f. 13.02.2026 to 12.02.2028 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.I) (E-33886)]

REGHURAM KRISHNA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2026

का.आ. 293.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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; psUubZ ds iapkV (a26/2015) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026-आई आर(बी- II)-21]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2026

S.O. 293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 26/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and

their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2026– IR(B-II)-21]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

ID No. 26/2025

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 05-02-2026

Sh. V. Suresh,

S/o, Veerappan,

No.26, Kannaagi Street,

Indira Gandhi Nagar,

Puducherry-605 001

:

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

1.

The General Manager,

Carana Bank, Disciplinary Action Cell,

Chennai Circle Office,

New No.524, (Old No.563/1), Annai Salai,

Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

: 2^nd party/1^st Respondent

1328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The Assistant General Manager,

Carana Bank, No.45, NSC Bose Road,

(Old Gingy Salai), Puducherry- 605 001

: 2^nd Party /2^nd Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: None

For the 2^nd Party/ ^1st and 2^nd Respondents

: M/s. R. Rajesh, Adv

Award

The

Central

Government,

Ministry

of

Labour&

Employment

vide

its

Order

No.7/8/2021/PDY/300037066/ADJ/A1, dated 30.01.2025 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

1. Whether the action of Canara Bank Management in imposing the punishment of ―Dismissal‖

to Shri. V. Suresh vide its proceedings dated 26.04.2005 is fair, legal and justified? and

2. Whether Shri. V. Suresh is entitled to receive Pension / EPF benefits under Employees

Contributory Provident Fund? If not, to what relief Shri. V. Suresh is entitled to?

2.

On receipt of the above reference dated 30.01.2025 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was

registered as ID No. 26/2025 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to

26.05.2025. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further

adjournments to 17.072025, 03.09.2025, 29.10.2025, 29.12.2025. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the

Respondent filed Vakalat Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the

reference dated 30.01.2025 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all

the opposite parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in

the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to

05.02.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up nor was any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf present.

The claim statement was not furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient

opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.

3.

In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which would

be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal.

4.

In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with

the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government,

as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.

5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.

An Award is passed accordingly.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 26 फरवरी, 2026

का.आ. 294.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्लू सी एल d

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-

सह

-

] नागृुर ds iapkV (

10/2019) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/38/2019-आई आर(सी.एम-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक/संृकच अजधकारी

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2026

S.O. 294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL

and their workmen received by the Central Government on 25/02/2026.

[No. L-22012/38/2019– IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director/Link Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1329

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/10/2019

Date: 03.02.2026.

Party No.1

:

The Area General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Ballarpur Area Post. Sasti, Tah. Rajura,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)-442905.

:

The Superintendent of Mines,

Western Coalfields Ltd., Ballarpur colliery,

3 & 4 Pits, Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur-442701.

Versus

Party No.2

:

Shri Mallesh Chandraish

R/o. Mines’s Quarter No. 4/3, BC,

WCL Colony, Ballarpur Distt. Chandrapur-442701,

AWARD

(Dated: 3^rd February, 2026)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A)

of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central

Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Western Coalfields Limited and one other and their workman Shri Mallesh

Chandraish for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/38/2019 (IR(CM-II) dated 09.05.2019,

with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of WCL through the Superintendent of

Mines, Ballarpur Distt. Chandrapur in termination of service of the applicant Shri Mallesh

Chandraiah, Ex. Senior Clerk Ballarpur Colliery, 3 & 4 Pits, Ballarpur Dist. Chandrapur and

request to quash and set aside the order of Discharge dated 15.02.2018 and reinstate in

service with all consequential benefits, is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the parties i.e. the petitioner Shri

Mallesh Chandraiah and the management of Western Coalfields Limited (“party no.1” in short).

The petitioner filed statement of claim and the respondent also filed written statement. On

09.12.2025 the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a pursis mentioning that the petitioner

died on 21.09.2025 due to illness. A copy of death certificate is also enclosed with the pursis.

On 07.01.2026 Shri Srinivas Mallesh Yengulwar son of late Mallesh Chandraiah filed pursis that

he doesn’t want to proceed with the matter anymore.

Hence, the reference is closed and an award is passed against the petitioner.

It is ordered:-

1330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

“The action of the management of WCL through the Superintendent of Mines,

Ballarpur Distt. Chandrapur in termination of service of the applicant Shri Mallesh

Chandraiah, Ex. Senior Clerk Ballarpur Colliery, 3 & 4 Pits, Ballarpur Dist. Chandrapur is

just, fair and legal. The workman Late Mallesh Chandraiah is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

(जहन्दी अनुभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2026

का.आ. 295.—केंद्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 (यथा

संिोजधत, 1987) के जनयम 10 के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय के प्रिासकीय जनयंत्रणाधीन

जनम्नजलजखत कायाचलयों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक कमचर्ाररयों ने जहन्दी का कायचसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज,

एतद्द्वारा अजधसूजर्त करती हज:

1. कमचर्ारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, साजहबाबाद, गाजियाबाद (उत्तर प्रदेि)

2. कमचर्ारी राज्य बीमा जनगम जर्दकत्सा महाजवद्यालय एवं अस्ट्ृताल, िोका, (ृजिम बंगाल)

3. कमचर्ारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, बीकानेर (रािस्ट्थान)

4. कमचर्ारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, जबबवेवाड़ी, ृुणे

5. कमचर्ारी राज्य बीमा जनगम जर्दकत्सा महाजवद्यालय एवं अस्ट्ृताल, नरोड़ा, अहमदाबाद

[सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी]

अतनु कुमार र्ौधुरी, उृमहाजनदेिक

(Hindi Section)

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2026

S.O. 295.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh)

2. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Medical College and Hospital, Joka (West Bengal)

3. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

4. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Bibvewadi, Pune

5. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Medical College and Hospital, Naroda, Ahmedabad

[No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN]

ATANU KUMAR CHOWDHURY, Dy. Director General

नई ददल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2026

का.आ. 296.—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 (a105/2002) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/186/2000-आई आर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1331

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2026

S.O. 296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 105/2002) 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-12012/186/2000– 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 5^th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 105/2002

[Old ID No.126/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

Sri Teetala Deva Prasad,

S/o T. Jakaraiah,

R/o 14/49, Sainath Puram,

C.S.I Church,

Mydukuru Post & Mandal,

Cuddapah Dist. A.P.

… Petitioner

And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupathi.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri A. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/186/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.09.2000

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.126/2000, 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, Mydukur Branch justified in terminating

Sri Teetala Deva Prasad, Messenger, from the services of the Bank? If not, what relief he is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 105/2002 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

1332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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 1990 to 1991, 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1333

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 1^st

settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2^nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3^rd

settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4^th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5^th 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

1334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1335

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 3^rd 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,

1336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 5^th 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1337

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 W3. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of

his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the letter for interview. Further Ex.W2 is the panel list. Ex.W3 is the Service certificate.

21.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. Bala Kotaiah 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 1^st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2^nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3^rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4^th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5^th 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, Mydukur branch in terminating the services of Workman

Sri Teetala Deva Prasad, 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.

1338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 5^th 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 5^th 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 5^th 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1339

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 5^th

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:-

1340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1341

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 required for

appointment in the branch..”

“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

1342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 5^th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5^th 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1343

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 5^th

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 5^th 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

5^th 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 the notification issued by the bank in terms of the settlements entered between the bank

1344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and the union…. Further, witness states, Some person who were included in the panel were given regular

employment in the bank.…. Further witness states, I am not having any papers or particulars 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 5^th 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1345

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 31.3.1997 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:-

“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

1346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 2^nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2^nd 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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1347

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 uncontroverted, 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 Teetala Deva Prasad, 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.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed

by me on this the 5^th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Teetala Deva Prasad

MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of letter for interview

Ex.W2: Photocopy of panel list

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Service certificate

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

1348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2026

का.आ. 297.—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 (a198/2002) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/46/2000-आई आर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2026

S.O. 297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 198/2002) 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-12012/46/2000– 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 4^th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 198/2002

[Old ID No.34/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

Sri Voore Seenaiah,

Madgul(P.O.) & Vill.

Mandal Madgul,

Mahaboobnagar.

Distt. Mahaboobnagar.

… Petitioner

And

The General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Hyderabad .

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Macheral Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri A. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/46/2000-IR(B.I) dated 11.7.2000

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.34/2000, 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, Hyderabad main branch in terminating the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1349

services of Sri Voore Seenaiah, Messenger, from the services of the Bank by way of oral orders w.e.f.

31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 198/2002 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 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 1990 to 1997, 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

1350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

1^st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2^nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the

3^rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4^th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5^th

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1351

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

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

1352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 3^rd 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1353

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 5^th 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

1354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 service certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the notification. Ex.W3 is the interview call letter. Ex.W4 to

Ex.W8 are the service certificates. Ex.W9 is the circular in the year 1999 and Ex.W10 is the audit report & circular

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 1^st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2^nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3^rd settlement dated

27.10.1988, 4^th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5^th 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, Hyderabad main branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri Voore Seenaiah, 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1355

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 5^th 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 5^th 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 5^th 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

1356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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 5^th

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1357

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

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

1358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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,

“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange, did not undergo the regular process of selection before my

engagement as temporary messenger 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1359

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

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

1360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 5^th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5^th 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 5^th

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 5^th 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

5^th 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1361

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 and the union in the

year 1991…. 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 in the order of their seniority in the panel…. Further witness states, I am not having any

documents to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service 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 5^th 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

1362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 31.3.1997 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 14, 2026/फाल् गुन 23, 1947

1363

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 2^nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2^nd 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

1364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2026/PHALGUNA 23, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 Voore Seenaiah, 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 4^th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Voore Seenaiah

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification

Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter

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