This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-30042026-272172

CG-DL-W-30042026-272172

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

No. 14] NEW DELHI, APRIL 12— APRIL 18, 2026, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 22––CHAITRA 28, 1948

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2026

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(Hindi-2)

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च, 2026

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2026

रेल मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2025

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(Railway Board)

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2025

1. Office of the Chief Workshop Manager, Central Workshop, Mysore South, South Western Railway,

Hubballi

2. Office of the Station Manager, Railway Station, Siliguri, North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati

3. Railway Recruitment Board Office, Bilaspur

IRCON International Limited, Chhattisgarh Rail Project Office, Bilaspur

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी, 2026

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2026

1. Bangalore Division Office, South Western Railway, Hubballi.

2. 16th Battalion (Women`s Battalion), Railway Protection Special Force, Asansol Office.

3. Railway Recruitment Board Office, Prayagraj.

4. Railway Recruitment Board Office, Bhubaneswar.

नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी, 2026

New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2026

नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी, 2026

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2026

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2026

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2026

1. RITES Limited, Project Unit Ahmedabad, Gujarat

2. RITES Limited, North East Regional Project Office, Guwahati, Assam

3. REMC Limited, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

C R No. 28/2015

I Party

II Party

Appearances

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s Hutti Gold Mines Ltd., Hutti, Raichur, Karnataka, in

terminating the services of Sh. Ibrahim S/o Shekh Imam Sab, a temporary worker, w.e.f., 18.07.2002 is

proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled to?"

i. Whether the II Party proves that the termination order dated 18.07.2002 is fair and proper and

justified under the law without conducting any enquiry and without providing an opportunity to

the I Party?

ii. Whether the II party proves that non consideration of the representations submitted by the I

Party as per the joint memo dated 22.11.2005 in WA 1861/2003 c/w 6375/2002 is justified?

iii. Whether the II Party proves that sufficient opportunity has been given to the I Party as per the

joint memo filed by both parties in WA 1861/2003 c/w 6375/2002 and also as per clause 3 of the

settlement?

1. It is agreed that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in WA No. 1861/2003 and respondent Nos. 1 to 27 in WA No.

6375/2002 who were in the original selection list of 117 employees shall be considered for employment and

they shall be given preference as and when any vacancy arises and when the management decides to fill up

the above post.

2. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in WA No. 1861/2003 and respondent Nos. 1 to 27 in WA No. 6375/2002, if and

when they are appointed, they shall be appointed as fresh employees and they shall not be entitled to any

back wages or continuity of service or any other compensation whatsoever from the date of termination i.e.,

18.07.2002 till the date of their fresh employment.

3. Since the entire selection list has been cancelled, no other person who was in the original list shall be

considered or given preference for any employment as per this terms of settlement. However, their case will

be considered depending on the merits as and when notification for recruitment is published and they

should not claim employment as a matter of right.

4. It is agreed that even in respect of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in WA No. 1861/2003 and respondent Nos. 1 to 27

in WA No. 6375/2002 preference shall be given in the appointment provided they fulfill all the eligibility

criteria including medical fitness and subject to the reservation policy. However, only eligibility regarding

age shall be relaxed.

5. Both the parties agreed to file this joint memo before this Hon'ble High Court and pray for disposal of the

above Writ Appeals in terms of this settlement between the parties, in the interest of justice and equity.

AWARD

The reference is thus answered by directing the II Party to consider both the applications submitted by the I

Party for the post of Security Guard and ITI Fitter in Group II (Mines division) as the case may be, with

requisite relaxation in age as per the rules and Government notifications subject to the educational

qualifications required for the posts, giving preference to the application submitted by him to the technical

post Fitter (Electrical) and to consider the same in a just and fair manner protecting the interest of the I

Party within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Award.

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

DELHI - 1, NEW DELHI.

ID No. 216/2015

Versus

AWARD

SCHEDULE

'Whether termination of Sh. Satyawan S/o Sh. Karamchand & 07 others (List is in the application at sl. No.1

to 8) by the management of Kritivaas Logistics Pvt. Ltd. without complying the provisions of Section 25F, H

& H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are

entitled to?'

Sh. Satyawan & ors. Vs. The Director, Kritivaas Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 606.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उतर

रेलवे के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट (40/2017) प्रकाशित करती है।

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

I.D. No. 40/2017

Ref No.L-41011/56/2016(IR(B-I)) Dated: 18.08.2017

Versus

AWARD

"Whether the action of the management of Chief Factory Manager, Loco Workshop, NR, Lucknow, in

denying the payment of Instructor Teaching Allowance from17.10.2005 to Shri Akhilesh Chandra is

justified and legal? If not, what relief Shri Akhilesh Chandra is entitled to?"

while he was worked as Instructor/Teacher in the System Technical School, Northern Railway Charbagh, or not?

पर्यवक्षक पशिक्षण केन्र, चारबाग-लखनऊ।

प्रथाकृचार्य

पर्यवक्षक पशिक्षण केन्र, चारबाग-लखनऊ।

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 607.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट

बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (78/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 78/2002

[Old ID No.72/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

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."

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.

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).

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

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 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 .."

"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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular process of selection

before my appointment as temporary attender."

"It is not true to say that I was not worked for 240 days and that giving false evidence to get employment in

the bank."

"I applied in response to an advertisemtn issued by the bank. …….Further, witness states, It is true that the

panels were prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary employees. Some

of the employees whose names are included in the panel were given appointment on regular basis in order

of their seniority.…. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any of my juniors

are continuing in the service."

"(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.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date

"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."

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it

was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his

services were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis.

Shastry award warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is

now covered by two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in

W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any

mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary

basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not

for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary

appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act."

" 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."

ORDER

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d)& (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference Case No. 16/2020

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ranchi

AND

Their Workman

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

List of workmen

ORDERED

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 609.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उतर पूर्व

रेलवे के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट (68/2013) प्रकाशित करती है।

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

I.D. No. 68/2013

Ref. No.L-41011/79/2013 IR(B-I) Dated: 18.10.2013

AWARD

3. That the averments made in para 1 of the claim statement are denied as stated. In reply thereto it is submitted

that the applicant was working as seasonal waterman till 19.7.1999. Seasonal Watermen were used to be

engaged in railways only for hot weather season. But the applicant has not worked as seasonal waterman since

last about 17 years. The post of Seasonal Waterman has also been now abolished. Hence re- engagement of the

applicant as a seasonal waterman is not permissible at this belated stage under rules, that too after lapse of

about two decades. It is also submitted that as a policy decision, since year 1990, no Seasonal Waterman is

being engaged on casual basis.

2. That the deponent was appointed as Seasonal water- man on dated 01.04.1979 under Station Supdt. Nowgarh

of N.E. Railway and he worked continuously from 01.04.1979 to 19.07.1999 every year as seasonal water-man

under opposite party. He attained temporary status on 27.09.1979 i.e. after 180-days continuous working from

the date of his 1st appointment which is 01.04.1979.

It is also supported by the record note given by the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Lucknow during

Conciliation proceedings on dated 12.10.2012.Copy enclosed as Annexure No. 1, 1-А, 1-B & 1-C

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

10. Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act reads thus:

"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. (1) [Where the appropriate Government is of opinion

that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing,-

(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or

(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or

[(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to

any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or

(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates

to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication:

Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect

more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a

Labour Court under clause (c):]"

"40. An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication and the workman

cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases which are covered by

Section 2-A of the Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those cases where the appropriate

13. The aforesaid legal position would make explicit that existence of industrial dispute is a paramount and

important consideration while dealing with Reference. Only existent or apprehended industrial disputes can be

referred for consideration of Court or Tribunal. However, at the time of taking decision whether Reference to

be made or not, appropriate Government need not venture into merits of dispute, as making Reference is only

administrative function. Only because Reference is made under Section 10(1), Court or Tribunal is not

precluded from entering into aspects of delay and laches or to record findings as to existence or non-existence

of dispute.

8. Placing reliance upon the Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa and others, (2023) SCC Online SC 1307,

and in Marinmoy Maity v. Chanda Koley and others, AIR 2024 SC 2717, the principle of delay and laches as

such and the action of the workmen sufferings from unexplained delay and laches and acquiescence were

accordingly considered and the petition was dismissed.

9. The law has been settled beyond any anvil of doubt on this aspect way- back in Bombay Union of Journalists

and others v. State of Bombay and another, 1964 (8) FLR 236 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held that if the

claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make

reference.

10. As noticed in Jai Singh's case (supra) also, the Full Bench had earlier noticed that the Division Bench,

while referring the matter had no justification not to follow the majority view of the Full Bench in Liaq Ram's

case (supra) and any other view which had been taken, including the judgment of Liaq Ram's case (supra)

therefore, must be held to be per incuriam

11. While referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways,

Hissar, 2014 (143) FLR 469 (SC), it was held that though the Act empowers the appropriate Government to

refer the industrial dispute for adjudication 'at any time', enormous delay would be a significant factor in

forming the opinion whether or not the dispute is still alive or has ceased to exist and thus the stale claim as

such could not be allowed to be raked up as is now sought to be done.

12. Similarly, the judgments in Workmen v. I.I.T.I. Cycles of India Ltd., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 733, was also relied

upon apart from the judgments in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative- Marketing-cum-Processing Service

Society and another, 1999 (82) FLR 137 (SC), while noticing that it was the case of dismissal as such and the

back-wages as such could be reduced to the extent of 60%. In case reference is made to S.M. Nilajkar v.

Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, 2003 (97) FLR 608 (SC), " it has been held that the dispute can be

raised at any time but regard to the delay and reasons therefor will have to be kept in mind and it does not

mean that power can be exercised without valid reasons.

13. Resultantly, the principles were laid down which had been referred by the learned Single which would go on

to show that the factor which has to be taken into consideration is whether or not the industrial dispute "exists"

or it has ceased to exist or has ceased to be alive or has become stale or has faded away.

14. It is pertinent to notice that in the representation filed by the writ petitioners, they had been initially

engaged as Beldars in Dharwala Sub-Division by the I&PH Department in June, 1999 and regularization, as

noticed was done on 03.10.2013 at Chamba after a lapse of 14 years and new I&PH Division Bharmour

District Chamba, H.P. was created in which the petitioners, thereafter had been shifted, when they raised the

dispute.

15. Reliance can be also placed upon the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Ravi Kumar, 2009 (122) FLR 737

(SC), that after 14 years, it would be impossible for the person supervising that whether the person had worked

or not and the reference was held to be stale.

"6. In the case at hand, the respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Driver vide order dated

17.12.1986. Accordingly, the benefit of first selection scale became due after nine years, sometime in 2004-

2005. The same was not done and neither was the non-grant of the benefit at the time was challenged by the

respondent-workman. The benefit of first selection scale was only granted vide order dated 06.04.2004. This

deferment was also not challenged immediately and was only challenged for the first time in 2013. The first

issue that is to be decided by this Court is what effect, if any, would this delay have on the merits of the case.

7. To decide the first issue, recourse may be taken to Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment of Mohan Lal (supra),

the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

"19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made

under the ID Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the

Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such

objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh [Asstt.

Eng., Rajasthan Development Corpn v. Gitam Singh], that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour

Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of

employment, length of service, of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in

raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.

20. Now, if the facts of the present case are seen, the position that emerges is this: the workman worked as a

work-charged employee for a period from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 (in all he worked for 286 days during his

employment). The services of the workman were terminated with effect from 18.2.1986. The workman raised the

industrial dispute in 1992 i.e. after 6 years of termination. The Labour Court did not keep in view admitted

delay of 6 years in raising the industrial dispute by the workman. The judicial discretion exercised by the

Labour Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in

restoring the award of the Labour Court whereby reinstatement was granted to the workman. Though, the

compensation awarded by the Single Judge was too low and needed to be enhanced by the Division Bench but

surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief"

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh (supra), held as under:

11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that both on the question of limitation as well as on merits, the

respondent was not entitled to the relief which was sought. The suit instituted by the respondent resp seven

years after he had demitted office was barred by limitation. That apart, the respondent failed to meet the basic

requirements for the selection grade. (Emphasis supplied)

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bichitrananda Behera (supra), after considering the erstwhile

judgments of Union of India v Tarsem Singh, Union of India v. N. Murugesan, and Chairman, State Bank of

India v. M.J. James, concluded that delay and laches are vital in service matters, and can be seen as

acquiescence."

"7. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. The issue relates to the grant of

permission to prosecute the petitioner. With this background, let me consider what facts I have here. In the

present case, the proceedings began based on the complaint made by Late H.T. Raju Suffice it to note that HT.

Raju made a complaint to the Labour Commissioner on 16.05.2017. The true copy of the complaint is furnished

along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-M. It is dated 16.05.2017 and H.T Raju made

allegations about non-payment of HRA, medical allowance and leave wages as per Settlement dated 21.08

1986. The Management filed its objections and brought to the notice of the Labor Commissioner that it had

settled all the dues to HT. Raju.

It is not in dispute that the Management and the Union signed a Settlement dated 21.08.1986 and thereafter,

several settlements were entered into between the Management and the respective Union from time to time.

Moreover. H.T. Raju was allotted a quarter and therefore, he was not eligible for HRA. It is pivotal to note that

H.T. Raju resigned and the same was accepted by the Management accordingly a service certificate was also

issued back in the year 2006 ie, on 04.09.2006 and the gratuity amount and leave encashment were also paid.

If one visualizes the scenario of the facts, the settlement happened back in the year 1986 and the dues were

settled in the year 2006. Strangely, H.T. Raju made an allegation and gave a complaint. There is an inordinate

delay of almost thirty years from the date of settlement. Reckoning the date from the settlement of dues, there is

an inordinate delay of almost eleven years. The impugned order is at Annexure-Q. A perusal of the same

reflects that the Labor Commissioner has erroneously proceeded in the matter and has blindly granted

permission to prosecute the petitioner Management."

8 It is a matter of record that according to the reference, petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f.

23/26.03.1998. The questions to be answered by the learned Labour Court were (i) whether such termination, of

petitioner's services who had raised industrial dispute after more than 16 years, without complying the

provisions of the Act is legal & justified. (ii) If not, keeping in view the delay of more than 16 years in raising

the industrial dispute, to what relief petitioner would be entitled to.

9. Industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner on 11.03.2014. Admittedly cause of action had accrued to the

petitioner in the year 2007, when according to him persons disengaged alongwith him were re-instituted. From

26.03.1998 (date of termination of petitioner's services as mentioned in the reference), there was delay of 16

years in taking recourse to law.

16. The issue still remains that if the workman was really aggrieved by the grant of fictitious breaks to her or

the factum of juniors allegedly being retained while she was disengaged, then, why she did not raise the issue in

between the year 2004 to 2010 and why did she rake up the issue only thereafter when she served for 16 days in

the year 2010. All these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned Labour Court.

17. Learned Court has not appreciated that the con- duct of the workman also has to be taken into con-

sideration and in this particular case the conduct of the workman did not entail the relief as was granted to her

by the learned Labour Court.

15. In the case of University of Delhi v. Union of India and others [(2020)13 SCC 745], it has been held that

condonation of long delay should not be automatic as the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the

opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. While considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation

would not be enough, rather it should be in the nature of indicating "sufficient cause" to justify the delay which

will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact

situation.

16. In the case of Shankara Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar [(2011)5 SCC 607], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that delay and laches is one of the factors that requires to be borne in mind by the High

Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an

appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extra-ordinary powers, if there is such negligence or

omission on the part of the applicant to assert his rights taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other

circumstances. Filing of representations would not be adequate explanation to justify the delay.

17. In the case of State of M.P. and others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and others [(1986)4 SCC 566], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretionary power, does not

ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on

the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court

may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

18. It is thus well settled that delay and laches is one of the factors to decline exercise of discretionary power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if there is negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to

assert his rights.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the aforesaid judicial

pronouncements, this Court is of the view that the present case has been preferred after an inordinate delay i.e.

15 years of passing the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 that too, without giving any cogent explanation for

the same. As such there is no reason to exercise discretionary jurisdiction so as to grant any relief to the

petitioners.

16. At this stage, Court takes note that during pendency of this writ petition i.e., for last 5 years, much water

has flown and that posts have already been filled up and since their selection are not under challenge,

therefore, relief sought in present writ petition is rendered infructuous.

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

I D No. 74/2019

I Party

II Party

Appearances

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED : 3rd FEBRUARY 2026

C R No. 45/2025

I Party

II Party

Appearances

SCHEDULE

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED : 5th FEBRUARY 2026

C R No. 27/2012

I Party

II Party

Appearances

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore, in terminating the I Party workman is legal and justified ?

2.To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

"if a party challenges the legality of an order the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order, and

if no evidence is produced the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. Therefore, whenever a

workman raises a dispute challenging termination of his service, it is imperative for him to file a written

statement before the Industrial Court setting out the grounds on which the Order is challenged and he must also

produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce

evidence, the dispute refereed for adjudication cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to

any relief and the court would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction if it gives an award in favour of the

workman in such a case."

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

C R No. 28/2012

I Party

II Party

1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG

2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling

Appearances

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore, in terminating the I Party workman is legal and justified ?

2.To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

C R No. 29/2012

I Party

II Party

Appearances

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore, in terminating the I Party workman is legal and justified ?

2. To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

"if a party challenges the legality of an order the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order, and

if no evidence is produced the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. Therefore, whenever a

workman raises a dispute challenging termination of his service, it is imperative for him to file a written

statement before the Industrial Court setting out the grounds on which the Order is challenged and he must also

produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce

evidence, the dispute referred for adjudication cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to

any relief and the court would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction if it gives an award in favour of the

workman in such a case."

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

C R No. 30/2012

I Party

II Party

1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG

2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling

Appearances

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore, in terminating the I Party workman is legal and justified ?

2. To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

"if a party challenges the legality of an order the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order, and

if no evidence is produced the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. Therefore, whenever a

workman raises a dispute challenging termination of his service, it is imperative for him to file a written

statement before the Industrial Court setting out the grounds on which the Order is challenged and he must also

produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce

evidence, the dispute refereed for adjudication cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to

any relief and the court would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction if it gives an award in favour of the

workman in such a case."

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

C R No. 31/2012

I Party

II Party

1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG

2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling

Appearances

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore, in terminating the I Party workman is legal and justified ?

2. To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

"if a party challenges the legality of an order the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order, and

if no evidence is produced the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. Therefore, whenever a

workman raises a dispute challenging termination of his service, it is imperative for him to file a written

statement before the Industrial Court setting out the grounds on which the Order is challenged and he must also

produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce

evidence, the dispute refereed for adjudication cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to

any relief and the court would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction if it gives an award in favour of the

workman in such a case."

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

C R No. 32/2012

I Party

II Party

1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG

2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling

Appearances

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore, in terminating the I Party workman is legal and justified ?

2. To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

"if a party challenges the legality of an order the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order, and

if no evidence is produced the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. Therefore, whenever a

workman raises a dispute challenging termination of his service, it is imperative for him to file a written

statement before the Industrial Court setting out the grounds on which the Order is challenged and he must also

produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce

evidence, the dispute refereed for adjudication cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to

any relief and the court would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction if it gives an award in favour of the

workman in such a case."

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/42/2014-15 Date:06.02.2026.

V/s.

AWARD

(Dated:6thFebruary, 2026)

ORDER

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/21/2024 Date: 02.02.2026

V/s.

AWARD

(Dated: 2nd February, 2026)

"Whether the action of the management of M/s MOIL. Ltd., Nagpur in not correcting date of birth of

the workman Shri Satyanaryan Ramsagar Shukla is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the

Union/Workman is entitled to?"

ORDER

"The action of the management of M/s MOIL. Ltd., Nagpur in not correcting date of birth of the

workman Shri Satyanaryan Ramsagar Shukla is just, fair and legal. The Union/Workman is not

entitled to any relief."

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/46/2014 Date:06.02.2026.

V/s.

AWARD

(Dated:6thFebruary, 2026)

"Whether the demand of the workman Sh. Vijay Bitto, MCO fieldman of Kanderi Manganese Mines

of the MOIL Ltd. for the change/amendment in the date of birth in his service record from 01.08.1957

to 08.06.1991 is legal proper and justified.? If so, to what relief the workman is entitledand what other

directions are necessary in the matter?

ORDER

"Thedemand of the workman Sh. Tukaram Mangal, MCO fieldman of Kanderi Manganese Mines of

the MOIL Ltd. for the change/amendment in the date of birth in his service record from 01.08.1957 to

08.06.1991is illegal, improper and unjustified. The workmanis not entitled to any relief."

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED : 27th FEBRUARY 2026

C R No. 04/2024

Appearances

II Party : None

SCHEDULE

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED : 27th FEBRUARY 2026

C R No. 26/2012

I Party

II Party

2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling

Appearances

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether the Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore, in terminating the I Party workmen is legal and justified ?

2. To what relief the workmen is entitled to?"

"if a party challenges the legality of an order the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order,

and if no evidence is produced the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. Therefore, whenever

a workman raises a dispute challenging termination of his service, it is imperative for him to file a written

statement before the Industrial Court setting out the grounds on which the Order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to

produce evidence, the dispute refereed for adjudication cannot be answered in his favour and he would not

be entitled to any relief and the court would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction if it gives an award in

favour of the workman in such a case."

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (ं220/2002) प्रकाशिात करती है।

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.220/2002

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 624.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय

स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (ं248/2002) प्रकाशिात करती है।

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 25th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 248/2002

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points

of dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 625.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय

स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (ं155/2002) प्रकाशिात करती है।

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 155/2002

[old ID No.101/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

And

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points

of dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 25th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 273/2002

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points

of dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 215/2002

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points

of dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

S.O. 628.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 216/2002) 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.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 216/2002

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

S.O. 629.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 239/2002) 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.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Presiding Officer

Dated the 25th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 239/2002

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

S.O. 630.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 94/2002) 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.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 94/2002

[Old ID No.91/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

AWARD

SCHEDULE

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."

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.

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

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.

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 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 .."

"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."

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

appointment in the branch."

"I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank.."

"I applied in response to the advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlements.…….Further, witness states, "It

is true that the panels were prepared by the bank basing upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary

employees. Some of the employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the

bank in order of their seniority in the panel…. Further witness states, I am not having any documents alleging that

any person who had worked for less number of days than me was given appointment."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

S.O. 631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 4/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda

and their workmen.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Dated the 11nd day of December, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2025

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

S.O. 632.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 34/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 34/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

" 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."

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.

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).

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.

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 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 .."

"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."

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

engagement as temporary non-messenger in the branch.."

"It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in a single branch."

"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."

"I applied for appointment as Non-Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year

1992… Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by the

temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular

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

documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment in the

bank."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

S.O. 633.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.31/2002) 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.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 25th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31/2002

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

S.O. 634.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 170/2025) 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.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Dated the 5th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 170/2025

AWARD

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of M/s Karni Safe Security Service(ops) Pvt Ltd, Contractor of State

Bank of India, RBO-I Visakhapatnam in terminating the workaman Sri Kondeti Chandra Sekhar, Ex-

Housekeeping worker by not following Section 25-G and 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is justified? If

not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 25th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 43/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

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."

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.

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).

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.

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 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 .."

"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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I 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 a single branch."

"I applied for appointment as messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1992, ….

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 were included in the panel were given regular appointment in

order of their seniority in the panel…. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any

person, who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment in the bank."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of

the Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 10th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 80/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

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."

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.

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."

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.

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 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 .."

"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."

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

engagement as a non messenger."

"I did not work for 240 days in any branch in any year….."

"I applied to an advertisement given by the bank as per the settlements entered between the union and bank.….

Further, witness states, I donot know panels are prepared depending upon the number of days of service of service

put in by the temporary employees. Further witness states, It is true that the employees whose names were included in

the panel were given regular appointment depending upon the vacancies…

I am not having any documents to show that any person who had worked for less no.of days than me was given

regular appointment….

I am not having any documents any of my juniors were continued in the service."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 26th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 50/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

" 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

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."

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.

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).

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.

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 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 .."

"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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

appointment in the branch.."

"It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank."

"I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in terms of settlements

entered into between the bank and the union…. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the

number of days of service put in by the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were

included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel…. Further

witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service in the bank."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं49/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 25th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 49/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

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."

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.

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).

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.

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 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 .."

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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

appointment.."

"I did not work for 240 days in any year in any one branch in my entire service in the bank."

"I applied in response to the notification given by the bank as per the settlements between the bank and the union….

Further, witness states, The panels were prepared basing on the number of days of service put in by the temporary

employees . Some of the employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the

bank in order of their seniority in the panel. …. Further witness states, I am not having any document to show that

any person who had worked for less no. of days than me was given appointment in the bank."

"(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.

"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."

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 10th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 85/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date."

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.

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."

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.

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 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."

"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."

" I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not under go the regular process of selection before my

appointment as a temporary Messenger. I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank."

"I applied in response to the to the advertisement issued by the bank…

The panels were prepared basing on the no. of days of service put in by the temporary employees. It is true that some

of the employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment as messenger in the bank. I

do not know that the bank had filled up the vacancies of messengers in order of their seniority of the temporary

employees from the panel…..

I am not having any document to show that any person who are juniors to me are continuing service."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 9th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 105/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date."

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.

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).

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."

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 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 .."

"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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular process required for

appointment in the bank .."

"I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank."

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."

"I applied in response to the notification issued by the bank in terms of the settlements engered between the bank and

the union. …. Further, witness states, I do not know that the senior employees from the panel were given regular

appointment as per the settlements …. Further witness states, I am not having any papers to show that any of my

juniors are working in the bank."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 9th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 94/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

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."

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.

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).

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."

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 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 .."

"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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular selection process required for

appointment as a temporary attender."

"I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank."

"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."

"I applied in response to an advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlements entered between the bank and

union. ….

The panel was prepared depending upon the no. of days of service put in by the temporary employees. Some of the

employees were given regular appointment as per the settlements in order of their seniority…

I am not having any documents to show that any person who had worked for less no. of days than me was given

appointment in the bank."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Between:

Appearances:

SCHEDULE

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common

award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an

outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date."

(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.

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).

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.

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 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 .."

"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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my

appointment in the branch.."

"It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank."

"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."

"I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year

1989…. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by

the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were

given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel…. Further witness states, It is

true that I am

not having any documents to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service in the bank."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it

was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services

were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award

warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by

two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of

1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint

employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in

the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if

again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has

got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 9th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 96/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date."

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.

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).

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.

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 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 .."

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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular 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 a single branch."

"I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1989,…….

The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service, put in by the temporary employees. Some of the

temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of

their seniority in the panel. …..

It is true that I am not having any documents to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service in the bank."

"(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.

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the

Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 9th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 108/2001

Between:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

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."

(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.

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."

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.

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 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 .."

"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."

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange and I did not undergo 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."

"I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union in

the year 1992…

The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary employees. Some

of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the

bank in order of their seniority in the panel. …

It is true that I am not having any documents to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service in the

"(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.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of

"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."

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it

was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services

were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award

warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by

two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of

1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint

employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in

the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if

again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has

got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act."

" 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."

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 141/2001

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of

dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 153/2001

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of

dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 155/2001

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of

dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 154/2001

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of

dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 234/2001

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of

dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 247/2001

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of

dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 233/2001

Between:

Appearances:

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of

dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may

be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 230/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 232/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 654.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं227/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 227/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 234/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 207/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 204/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 205/2001

AWARD

SCHEDULE

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Appendix of evidence

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

click here for IIIF manifest

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

सं. 14] नई दिल्ली, अप्रैल 12—अप्रैल 18, 2026, शनिवार/चैत्र 22—चैत्र 28, 1948

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

(हिन्दी-2)

का.आ. 597.—के न्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के के न्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड के अधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों एवं कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है।

2467 GI/2026

(3003)3004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

क्र म सं.	कार्यालय का नाम
1.	आयुक्त (अपील) का कार्यालय, कें रीय माल और सेवा कर,गोवा
2.	लेखापरीक्षा महानिदेशालय, दिल्ली क्षेत्रीय इकाई, नई दिल्ली
3.	प्रधान आयुक्त का कार्यालय, के न्रीय माल एवं सेवा कर, वडोदरा-I

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- हिन्दी-2-अधिसूचना]

राजेश रंजन, सहायक निदेशक (रा.भा.)

New Delhi, the 9th April, 2026 S.O. 597.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

. No.	Name of the Office
	1. Office of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax Appeal Commissionerate, Goa
2. Directorate General of Audit, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi
	3. Office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Vadodara-I

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification] RAJESH RANJAN, Assistant Director (OL)

का.आ. 598.—भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) जिसे इसमे इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 कि उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2969(अ) तारीख 24.07.2024 जो भारत के असाधारण राजपत्र तारीख 25.07.2024 मे प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विर्निर्दष्ट भूमि में मैसर्स इंरधनुष गैस डिि लिमिटेड द्वारा असम राज्य में सिलचर सीजीडी स्पर लाइन ऑफ गुवाहाटी-शिलांग-सिलचर-पानीसागर प्रकृ तिक गैस पाइपलाइन के मधायम से प्रकृ तिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों को परीक्षण के उपरांत निपटान कर दिया है;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (1) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3005

और भारत सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

अतः अब, भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 कि उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विर्निर्दष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;

और भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम कि धारा 6 कि उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये, यह निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइने बिछाने के लिए भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय, पाइपलाइन बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली मैसर्स इंरधनुष गैस डिि लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शतों के अधीन रहते हुये, सभी विलंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स इंरधनुष गैस डिि लिमिटेड में निहित होगा।

कोटिगोराह       कोटिगोराह       भांगरपार पार्ट-III       46                        00             02    00
 कोटिगोराह      कोटिगोराह         चंदपुर पार्ट-III       28                        00             00    50

(फा. सं. एल-14014/249/2022 - जी पी-II (ई-45396 )

रामजी लाल मीना, अवर सचिव

S.O. 598.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O.No.2969(E) dated the 24.07.2024, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 25.07.2024, the Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of Natural Gas through Silchar CGD Spur line of Guwahati - Shillong - Silchar - Panisagar Section of North - East Natural Gas Pipeline in the state of Assam by Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL).

And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public.

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disposed by the Competent Authority.

And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted its report to the Government of India.

And whereas the Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Government of India hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting3006 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL), free from all encumbrances.

Katigorah     Katigorah    Bhangerpar Pt-3       46                      00          02   00
Katigorah     Katigorah     Chandpur Pt-3        28                      00          00   50

[F. No. L - 14014/249/2022 - G P – II (E - 45396 )

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under secy.

(रेलवे बोर्ड)

का.आ. 599.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम, 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के नियम-10 के उपनियम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों जहाँ 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है:-

1. मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंधक का कार्यालय, कें रीय कारखाना, मैसूरु दक्षिण, दक्षिण पश्चिम रेलवे, हुब्बल्लि 2. स्टेशन प्रबंधक का कार्यालय, रेलवे स्टेशन, सिलीगुड़ी, पूवोत्तर सीमा रेलवे, गुवाहाटी

3. रेलवे भर्ती बोर्ड कार्यालय, बिलासपुर

4. इरकॉन इंटरनेशनल लिमिटेड, छत्तीसगढ़ रेल परियोजना कार्यालय, बिलासपुर

[फा. सं. हिंदी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2304430)]

डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, निदेशक, राजभाषा

S.O. 599.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where 80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(2304430)]

Dr. V. SUGUNA, Director, O.L.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3007

का.आ. 600.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम, 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के नियम-10 के उपनियम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों जहाँ 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है:-

1. बेंगलूरु मंडल कार्यालय, दक्षिण पश्चिम रेलवे, हुब्बल्लि

2. 16वीं वाहिनी (महिला वाहिनी), रेलवे सुरक्षा विशेष बल, आसनसोल कार्यालय

3. रेलवे भर्ती बोर्ड कार्यालय, प्रयागराज

4. रेलवे भर्ती बोर्ड कार्यालय, भुवनेश्वर

[फा. सं. हिंदी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2351362)]

डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, निदेशक, राजभाषा

S.O. 600.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where 80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(2351362)]

Dr. V. SUGUNA, Director, O.L.

का.आ. 601.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम, 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के नियम-10 के उपनियम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में रेलवे भर्ती बोर्ड कार्यालय, मु ंबई कार्यालय, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है।

[फा. सं. हिंदी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2358312)]

डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, निदेशक, राजभाषा

S.O. 601.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the Railway Recruitment Board Office, Mumbai where 80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(2358312)]

Dr. V. SUGUNA, Director, O.L.

3008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

का.आ. 602.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम, 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के नियम-10 के उपनियम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में इरकॉन इंटरनेशनल लिमिटेड, जम्मू परियोजना कार्यालय, जम्मू, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है।

[फा. सं. हिंदी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2375242)]

डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, निदेशक, राजभाषा

S.O. 602.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the IRCON International Limited, Jammu Project Office, Jammu where 80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(2375242)]

Dr. V. SUGUNA, Director, O.L.

का.आ. 603.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम, 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के नियम-10 के उपनियम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में राइट्स लिमिटेड, गुरुािम के तीन निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ कार्यालयों जहाँ 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है:-

1. राइट्स लिमिटेड, परियोजना यूनिट, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात

2. राइट्स लिमिटेड, उत्तर पूर्व क्षेत्रीय परियोजना कार्यालय, गुवाहाटी, असम

3. आरईएमसी लिमिटेड, भीकाजी कामा प्लेस, नई दिल्ली

[फा. सं. हिंदी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2393404)]

डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, निदेशक, राजभाषा

S.O. 603.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the following three subordinate offices of RITES Limited, Gurugram where 80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(2393404)]

Dr. V. SUGUNA, Director, O.L.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3009

का.आ. 604.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार हट्टी गोल्ड माइन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री इब्राहिम के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 28/2015) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-43012/01/2015-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 604.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Hutti Gold Mines and Shri Ibrahim which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-43012/1/2015 (IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

DATED 23rd January 2026

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

Sh. Ibrahim,

The General Manager,

S/o Sheikh Imam Sab,

Hutti Gold Mines Limited,

Gurgunta Post and village,

Hutti Post,

Lingasugur Taluk,

RAICHUR – 584 122.

I Party : Adv. N M Handral, Advocate

II Party : Adv. M R C Ravi, Advocate

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-43012/1/2015-IR(M) dated 25.08.2015 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

3010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. On receipt of the reference and on registering it as CR 28/2015 and on issuance of notices to both the Parties, Adv. N M Handral filed vakalath for the I Party and Adv. M R C Ravi filed vakalath for the II Party.

3. The I Party filed his claim statement stating that he was appointed as a temporary employee on 28.06.2002 for a period of two years in Mining section; that the II Party has stated that their services would be made permanent in the pay scale of Rs. 800 – 1050 with other benefits attached to G2 Category; that their services would be terminated if their services were not satisfactory; that the I Party and others were given dresses, cap etc., which were essential for the purpose to discharge the duty; that the Executive Director has appointed them, whereas, the Junior Officer has cancelled their appointment under the impugned order dated 18.07.2002; that the I Party discharged his duty without any complaint; that no reasons were assigned before issuance of termination order dated 18.07.2002; that he approached the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 44526-44527/2002 and the Writ Petition came to be allowed; aggrieved by the above order the II Party has filed Writ Appeal No. 1861/2003 c/w 6375/2002; that during the pendency of the Writ Appeal both the parties have filed Joint Memo of Settlement and the said Writ Appeal came to be disposed off; that the II Party has not complied with the terms and conditions of the Joint Memo till date though there was clear vacancy; that the II Party has recruited several other persons into service without affording any opportunity to the I Party and that he has been victimized by the disobedience of the Order of Writ Appeal and also violation of the terms of the Joint Memo of settlement by the II Party. The I Party along with others filed WP 86362- 86381/2013 and also contempt of court case CCC no. 4043 – 4062 / 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking implementation of the terms of settlement in the Joint Memo. The Hon'ble High Court disposed the petition reserving liberty to the I Party to approach the jurisdictional court. The I Party sent several representations to the II Party requesting to provide employment based on the joint memo. Then , the I Party approached the RLC, Bellary seeking conciliation ; but the conciliation effort came to be ended in failure and the matter is referred to this Tribunal wherein the I Party filed the claim statement seeking a favorable answer in the schedule of reference and to grant reinstatement, consequential benefits and continuity of service.

4. Inter alia, the II Party in its counter statement contended that the I Party along with few others was appointed on 26.06.2002 as a labourer on consolidated basis for a period of two years and that the II Party Management withdrew such appointments on 18.07.2002 as those appointments were not as per Recruitment rules and procedures of the II Party company; that the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition has also directed the II Party to take action against the Petitioners in the writ petitions including the I party if the Rules and Procedures are not followed in their appointments; that the said order was challenged by the II Party in WA 1861/2003 and the same was disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo filed along with memo for settlement dated 21.09.2005; that the I Party along with others filed WP No. 86362 – 86381/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench alleging that his case was not considered while recruiting 150 technical posts, but the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the same on 24.01.2013 and then the I Party filed contempt petition which came to be dismissed as withdrawn; that the Order of appointment was withdrawn and cancelled by the competent authority and not by Junior Officer as claimed by the I Party; that the I Party was employed for a period of two weeks i.e., from 29.06.2002 to 18.07.2002; that as the appointment was discovered to be contrary to the rules of the company, the appointment orders were withdrawn vide order dated 18.07.2002; that the I Party cannot claim employment in the II Party as a matter of right and hence there is no question of any violation of the terms of settlement by the II Party; that the I Party has submitted a representation and an endorsement was given on 13.09.2012 but informed the I Party that the Posts called for were purely technical posts comprising of ITI and diploma Holders and his case would be considered during the general recruitment of non- technical post as and when vacancies arise; that the conciliation proceedings were conducted before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Bellary which resulted in this reference; that the II Party has not violated any order of terms of settlement of the Joint Memo and that the I Party has not been victimized in any manner. Hence, the II Party has requested this Tribunal to dismiss the reference.

5. After completion of the pleadings, the matter came to be posted for Evidence. On 30.01.2019, my learned Predecessor on verification of the reference Order directed to both parties that the matter may be adjudicated on hearing arguments and posted the matter for arguments on merits.

6. In addition to the schedule of reference, my learned predecessor in Office on scrutiny of the rival pleadings put forth by the respective parties framed the following issues for consideration and disposal of the matter:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3011

7. Heard the detailed arguments addressed by counsel for both parties.

8. Issues no. 1 to 3: Since the crucial points to be discussed and adjudicated in the given case lie inter mixed and intertwined, all these issues are discussed together for the sake of brevity and clarity.

9. Undisputedly, the I Party was inducted to the pay roll of the II Party management under Annexure A order of appointment dated 28.06.2002. The English translation of Annexure A which is in Kannada version reveals that the II Party Hutti Gold Mines Company LTD has appointed the I Party, Sh. Ibrahim, for a period of 2 years from 28.06.2002 as an ordinary worker in the Gene division Drilling and Blasting Department (Batch no. 673) subject to certain terms and conditions. His salary is shown as a consolidated figure of Rs. 1550/- during the first year and Rs. 1650/- during the second year per month. It is also stipulated in the order of appointment that until the administration confirms his appointment, he has to be continued as a temporary worker and he would be confirmed in the salary scales of 8000-1050, basic salary of Rs. 8000/- , FDA Rs. 135/-, VDA Rs. 745.80 and with applicable IDA. Surprisingly as per Annexure B dated 18.07.2002, the II Party management has withdrawn the appointment of the I Party and the same is cancelled with immediate effect and he was asked to contact the accounts department for settling his account. Annexure A order of appointment cautioned the I Party workman that if prior to the period of confirmation, his efficiency in the work and conduct are found to be not good, he would be terminated from the service without any prior warning or any kind of enquiry and reckoning of the period of his service will come to an end then and there. Annexure B, as rightly urged by the learned counsel for the I Party did not contain any specific reason for his termination.

10. Eventually the termination of service was challenged by the I Party and yet another co-employee before the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP no. 44526 & 44527 / 2002. The order in the said writ petition reveals that several other writ petitions were filed by the similarly placed workmen as WP no. 29196 - 29222 / 2002 and those were stood disposed off on 11.10.2002 under Annexure D order. Annexure D order would indicate that the stand adopted by the II Party management was that the Executive Director of the company, just before his retirement, by playing fraud has issued appointment to all the petitioners and on coming to know about the same, the company has withdrawn the appointments as the said appointments were found to be a fraud played by the Executive Director concerned and the writ petitioners. Under Annexure D order dated 11.10.2002, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the termination order (Annexure B) reserving the liberty to the II Party to take action against the petitioners if really they have been appointed contrary to the provisions of the Recruitment Rules holding that the order of termination is bad in law since no opportunity is given to the writ petitioners before terminating them. The above verdict in the writ petition was challenged by the II Party management before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WA no. 1861/2003 (SRAG). During the pendency of the writ appeal , an agreement was entered into between the I Party workmen and the II Party management arriving at certain terms of settlement. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court disposed the writ appeals in terms of the Joint Memo filed along with the memo of settlement dated 21.09.2005. Now the grievance of the I Party is that despite making repeated representations requesting to provide an employment in the II Party company in terms of the Joint Memo of Settlement (Annexure E) aforementioned, the II Party did not oblige to the same.

11. The I Party has placed on record Annexure G representations to the Chairman of the II Party company, Annexure H is the representation dated 11.01.2012 to its Executive Director and Annexure M and N respectively dated 17.10.2014 and 16.12.2014 seeking employment. Apparently no action is ensued in favor of the I Party pursuant to any of such request letters. Annexure O dated 08.04.2015 is seen to be the request made by the I Party before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Bellary seeking for conciliation in matter narrating the whole episode. Annexure P is the conciliation failure report submitted by the RLC, Bellary to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 06.05.2015. In Annexure O and P, the fact that the I Party has acquired the qualification of ITI in Electrical is made mention of. In pursuance of failure of the conciliation efforts, he rushed to this Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievance alleging refusal of compliance of the terms of settlement by the employer.

12. All along the II Party has expressed its stand that the I Party cannot claim employment in the II Party company as a matter of right and hence there is no question of any violation of terms by the II Party. The II Party has preferred to emphatically specify certain terms of the settlement (Annexure F) viz. at clause 3 which speaks about cancelation of the entire selection list and disentitlement of the other persons (emphasis supplied) who were in the original list to be considered or given preference for any employment as per the terms of settlement. As per the said clause, their case will be considered depending on the merits as and when notification for recruitment is published and they should not claim employment as a matter of right. Now the management is very much upon this particular clause no. 3 to decline the urge for employment raised by the I Party. It is worthy in the context to reproduce the terms of settlement entered into between the parties in the Joint Memo:-

3012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13. As per clause no. 1 quoted above, the II Party management has agreed to give preference to the I Party and similarly placed 28 other persons in the original selection list, which stood cancelled, as and when any vacancy arises and when the management decides to fill up the above posts. Giving preference in which area is not very beautifully worded in clause no. 1 to the terms of settlement. By signing the Joint Memo, the I Party as one among the signatories agreed to the terms (in clause no. 2) that if and when appointed, he shall be appointed as a fresh employee and shall not be entitled for any back wages or continuity of service or any other compensation whatsoever from the date of termination i.e. 18.07.2002 till the date of his fresh employment.

14. Clause 3 to the terms of settlement has already been discussed in the aforesaid paragraph. By the very terms of clause 3 referred to above, it stood appear that the said clause does not pertain to the writ petitioners in the respective writ petitions, numbering 29 in total. Instead the term "no other person who was in the original list" should be with reference to the rest among the total 117 employees in the original selection list and who did not pursue any litigation pursuant to the termination. As against that, the management is relentlessly using afore-quoted clause no. 3 as a tool to discard the request of the I Party for getting an employment in the company. Failure to offer employment to the I Party does not tantamount to violation of terms of settlement according to the II Party simply by virtue of the impact of clause no. 3. However a strict interpretation of clause no. 3 as indicated by me above saves the I Party from its adverse application as it strictly applies to other persons (emphasis supplied) in the original list. Therefore, refusal to induct the I Party by offering a job, which he has applied for abundantly immediately pursuant to the disposal of WP 1861/2003 and continuously thenceforth as and when vacancies were notified is not a fair and genuine approach of the II Party.

15. Controversy exists regarding the status of the I Party at the very induction to service under the II Party. While the I Party claimed that he was appointed to a technical post under Annexure A appointment order dated 28.06.2002, the II party Management opposed the said contention and urged that he was appointed only as an ordinary worker in G-division in the Drilling and Blasting department. A perusal of the English translation of Annexure A would show that appointment of the I Party under Annexure A was as an ordinary worker and not to a technical post. Annexure B termination order also does not bring out any divergent meaning and substance regarding the status of the employee in the temporary appointment. The I Party has no case that at the time of his appointment under Annexure A dated 28.06.2002, he had any technical qualification to be appointed at the technical post requiring specialized skill / experience. So apparently there cannot be any successful debate by the I Party on the status of his job under Annexure A order of appointment.

16. However it is well come out in records that during the post-termination interregnum, the I Party has passed 2 years ITI course in Electrical in the year 2012 by securing 572 out of 700 marks (81.71 %). This is an additional academic qualification he claimed to have obtained at a later point of time, precisely in 2012. On such academic acquisition, the I Party is seen to have applied for the post: G-8 grade vacancies with the pay scale of 20920-42660 + IDA applicable. The aforementioned application is accompanied with by the employment notification released by the II Party dated 15.03.2024 for Grade 5 posts and Grade 8 posts. The particular branches of Grade 8 posts shown in the employment notification are ITI fitter Mine division - 54 vacancies, ITI Fitter Metallurgy Division – 17 vacancies, ITI fitter Land Acquisition Mine Division – 02 vacancies; ITI (Electrical Technical Department) – 4 vacancies and Security guards – 24 vacancies.

17. While the I Party has produced only the front page of the vacancy notification dated 15.03.2024 which lacks complete details of the prescriptions mandated by the establishment, the latter has produced the complete notifications[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3013 along with its memo dated 06.03.2025 that actually shows how many vacancies arose under each head and which all vacancies are meant for such an such categories and all.

18. Before entering into a detailed discussion of aforementioned vacancy notification dated 15.03.2024 produced by the II Party, I find it very pertinent to note that though in the memo dated 03.01.2025 the I Party has stated that he has put in an application for the post of Security Guard announced in the job notification dated 15.03.2024 and copy of the same is produced along with the memo, what is seen enclosed with the memo is an application sent by him on 16.04.2024 to the post of ITI (Electrical) (Engineering department). The application for the post of Security Guard claimed to have been submitted by him is not produced before this Tribunal by the I Party. However, in the endorsement made by the II Party dated 26.04.2024 (in Kannada language the translation of which is produced by the I Party) it is made clear that the I Party has submitted an application to the Administrative Department on 28.03.2024 which should be to the post of Security Guard announced under the aforementioned notification dated 15.03.2024. In the aforementioned endorsement dated 26.04.2024, the II Party management made it clear that the I Party has to submit PUC qualification documents to the Company. Similar statement is made by the II party in the memo dated 17.02.2025 as well undertaking that the company would consider the application placed by the I Party to the Security Guard post if he has completed PUC and he filed his application with requisite educational documents if he had completed his PUC as on 2002-2003 whereon the II Party will verify with regard to the age relaxation and take further steps. The very same memo speaks about an endorsement of the II Party dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure J). The said endorsement is stated to be in response to the I Party's representation dated 25.08.2012 as referred to in it. As mentioned in Annexure J, the aforementioned representation of the I Party is requesting to consider him for appointment in the then recruitment notification of 150 posts. Those 150 posts as declared in the aforementioned Annexure J endorsement were that of technical posts comprising of ITI and diploma holders and there is a solemn declaration by the II Party that the management is still bound to the terms of settlement made before the Hon'ble High Court in WA 1861/2003 and that the request of the I Party would be considered during the General recruitment of non-technical post as and when the vacancies are called for.

19. So much so, the application admittedly submitted by the I Party for Security Guard post (Non-technical) under employment notification dated 15.03.2024 is liable to be preferentially considered by the II Party management in strict and scrupulous compliance to the terms of the Joint Memo recorded by the Hon'ble High Court in WA 1861/2003, according the eligible / permissible age relaxation provided he submits the requisite educational qualification (PUC).

20. It is the case of the I Party that in the year 2012 he has acquired an additional academic qualification in ITI Electrical in a 2-year course by securing 81.71% of marks. This subsequent academic acquisition did enable him to apply for technical post of Fitter as well under the employment notification dated 15.03.2024. He has submitted copy of the job application dated 16.04.2024 submitted to the post of G-8 grade vacancies on a pay scale of Rs. 20920 – 42660 + IDA applicable under category 2(b) under Preference Local as per the aforesaid notifications dated 15.03.2024. Among the 2 notifications dated 15.03.2024, the one prescribed for Kalayana Karnataka Local cadre is applicable to the I Party. The said notification provides that the number of posts – ITI Fitter Group II (Mines Division) reserved for women is liable to be filled by men candidates after securing exemptions from the competent authority since underground mining work is difficult to be performed by women candidates. The I Party being a member of 2(b) category as claimed by him, his maximum age limit under the notification for the post of ITI Fitter Group II (Mines Division) is 38 years. As per the Article 371 J of the constitution of India, a special scheme is provided for Kalayana Karnataka job reservations which includes further age relaxation as well typically extending upto 10 years beyond the standard age limit envisaged by the State Government of Karnataka to support candidates from the designated Kalyana Karnataka districts, which also the management is bound to take into consideration while dealing with his job application.

21. An emphatic argument is set forth by the learned counsel for the II Party that the I Party is not entitled to apply for the technical post, as in the Joint Memo, the management has committed to give priority / preference to the job which he already performed under the management under Annexure A1. To put it differently, it is the case of the respondent that under the strength of the Joint Memo , the I Party cannot claim any preference or priority for technical job under the II Party management. On a close scrutiny of the specific terms and stipulations in the settlements / Joint memo, no such reservation / specification is seen emphasized regarding the category of job for which the I Party is entitled for preference / priority when such vacancy arises. It is more specifically and precisely mentioned in clause 2 to the terms of settlement that the I Party, if and when appointed , shall be appointed as fresh employee and shall not be entitled to any back wages or continuity of services or any other compensation whatsoever from the date of termination i.e., 18.07.2002 till the date of their fresh employment. Further in clause 4, it is stipulated that preference shall be given in the appointment provided the I party fulfills all the eligibility criteria including medical fitness and subject to reservation policy ; however only eligibility regarding age shall be relaxed. There also it is not specified that he or any of the signatories to the Joint memo / terms of settlement shall apply only to the original post to which they were absorbed under Annexure A1. The fact being so , the II Party management should not add or subtract any condition which the joint memo / terms of settlement never intended. It is of crucial significance that this joint memo containing the specific terms of settlement has already been duly recorded by the Hon'ble High Court and the verdict in WA 1861 / 2003 and the connected writ appeal is given in accordance with that. Therefore the II Party management3014 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] is not permitted to introduce its own interpretations to the terms and stipulations to the settlement arrived at by the parties. Accordingly the II Party is bound to reckon the application submitted by the I Party on 16.12.2024 to the technical post of ITI fitter in Group II (Mines division) under the notification dated 15.03.2024 subject to his eligibility for age relaxation under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India afore-discussed by me in para 20 as on the date of his application. The stand adopted by the II Party that he is not at all eligible or entitled for a technical post sounds untenable and unsustainable and hence the said argument is discarded. It is contextually significant to observe that the I Party workman was not kicked out from the job for any of his proved fault / misdeed. Practically, he has been running from pillar to post all along till date and his grievance still remains unattended. Being a signatory to the consciously accepted terms of settlement, the II Party management is legally and morally duty bound to commit itself to the exact terms by providing eligible employment to the signatory employees under it.

22. To conclude, the II Party is obliged to consider both the applications submitted by the I Party for the post of Security Guard and ITI Fitter in Group II (Mines division) as the case may be, with requisite relaxation in age as per the rules and Government notifications discussed supra subject to the educational qualifications required for the posts, giving preference to the application submitted by him to the technical post Fitter (Electrical) and to consider the same in a just and fair manner protecting the interest of the I Party.

23. The I Party in his claim petition has put forth the claim for reinstatement, back consequential benefits and continuity of service. Indeed Annexure F terms of settlement very specifically stipulates in clause 2 that he is not entitled to any back wages or continuity of services or any other compensation whatsoever from the date of termination i.e., 18.07.2002 till the date of his fresh employment. Therefore being a signatory to Annexure F Joint Memo, the I Party is not entitled to claim any such extra benefits which are not permitted under the terms of settlement. Therefore the above relief put forth by him is untenable and unsustainable and hence is liable to be rejected.

24. The schedule of reference made by the Central Government and Issue no. 1 framed by my Learned Predecessor are regarding propriety, legality and justification of the action of the II Party management in terminating the services of the I Party w.e.f 18.07.2002. By consciously entering into Annexure F terms of settlement with the II Party during the pendency of WA 1861/2003 which has been recorded and got merged in Annexure E verdict rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said Writ Appeal dated 22.11.2005, apparently the I Party has relinquished his challenge on his termination under Annexure B. Instead his entire claim for employment has been transformed to purely based on the specific terms of settlement in Annexure F, which strictly rules out any future claim for back wages or continuity of services or any other compensation whatsoever from the date of termination i.e., 18.07.2002 till the date of his fresh employment. So much so, the instant Central Reference is liable to be answered in such a way awarding the relief specifically mentioned in para 22 above, which the II Party as a signatory to Annexure F Joint Memo / settlement is obliged to perform. With this view, these issues are answered accordingly.

25. All the pending interlocutory applications are also disposed off accordingly.

26. On this finding, the following Award is passed:

(Dictated to LDC, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 23rd January 2026)

Smt. K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 605.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार

कृ तिवास लॉजिस्टिक्स (प्रा.) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री सत्यवान व अन्य, एयरपोर्ट एम्प्लॉईज़

यूनियन के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली, पंचाट

(रिफरेन्स न.- 216/2015) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-11011/20/2015-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3015

S.O. 605.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 216/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Kritivaas Logistics (Pvt.) Ltd. and Shri Satyawan & others through Airport Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-11011/20/2015-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Shri Satyawan & others through Airport Employees Union, BTR Bhawan, 13A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi-110002. …Claimant

The Director, Kritivaas Logistics (Pvt.) Ltd., L-312, 1st Floor, Gali No.7, Mahipalpur Extn, New Delhi-110037. Management

1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-L-11011/20/2015(IR(M) dated 23.09.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

2. In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within fifteen days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen as well as the management. In pursuance to the notices sent, statement of claim was filed. Thereafter, none has appeared on behalf of the claimant. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Date: 14.01.2026

AJAY KUMAR JAIN, Presiding Officer3016 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[सं. एल – 41011/56/2016- आई आर (बी.I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 606.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.40/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen.

[No. L-41011/56/2016- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Zonal Organizing Secretary

North, Railway Karmchari Union Lucknow

In matter of (Shri Akhilesh Chand Dwivedi). …Claimant

1- Chief Factory Manager, LOCO Workshop,

Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.

2- Principal, System Technical School,

Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.

…Respondents

By order No.L-41011/56/2016(IR(B-I)) Dated: 18.08.2017, the present industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3017

Accordingly, an I.D. Case No. 40/2017 has been registered.

I have heard learned counsel for parties, perused the record.

On 16.04.2004, respondent/competent authority of Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow, invited application in order to appoint on the post of Instructors in scale of Rs.4500/- to Rs.7000/- pm to work in BTC (Basic Training Centre) LOCO Workshop Northern Railway Charbagh, Lucknow.

Shri Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi/claimant who was working as Junior Progressive Man under respondent no.1/Chief Factory Manager, LOCO Workshop Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow, applied for his candidature.

Thereafter a written test was conducted on 24.02.2005, candidates who are found eligible for the post of Instructor as per advertisement dated 16.04.2004, have been called for written test.

Claimant/workman, appeared in written test, was passed, thereafter called for interview conducted on 17.06.2005, declared successful.

On 17.10.2005, workman was posted as Instructor in Grade of Rs.4500-7000, post of Instructor is an Ex Cadre post.

Further as per the pleading in claim statement, workman pleaded that in his parent cadre, he was also promoted in Grade of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 26.05.2005 much before his posting in Ex-Cadre Post of Instructor.

It has been further pleaded in the claim petition under existing scheme the workman who services has been utilized against the post of instructor, he is entitled to receive the benefit of payment of 15% extra salary of his basic pay, and allowance drawn by him from the date of working as instructor but the opposite parties did not make the payment of said 15% instructor allowance to workman concerned from the date of posting from 17.10.2005 to 28.12.2013 against the post of Instructor.

Further it has been pleaded on behalf of workman that he performed his duties against the post of Instructor in Grade 4500-7000 w.e.f. 17.10.2005 to 28.02.2013 but was not paid 15% allowance on his basic pay despite the fact he was entitled to get said allowance from opposite parties under existing Rules, so he submitted several representations to get the benefit of said 15% benefit and in response of the same the General Manager/Mech Baroda House, New Delhi held the workman entitled to receive the teaching/instructor allowance to workman but opposite parties deliberately with held the payment of Instructor allowance. For which the workman is actually entitled to receive from opposite parties for the period he rendered his duties against the post of instructor under opposite parties.

On behalf of workman it has also been pleaded that as per the facts and circumstances as mentioned above it may be held that action of management of Chief Works Manager, LOCO Workshop N.R. Lucknow in denying the payment of Instructor/teaching allowance from 17.10.2005 to Shri Akhilesh Chand Dwivedi is neither legal nor justified, and the workman may be held entitled to receive 15% Instructor teaching allowance from 17.10.2005 to 28.02.2013 the period during which he performed his duties as Instructor.

On behalf of respondent in written statement the case which was taken up that as per office order dated 17.10.2005, respondent is not entitled for any instructor/teaching allowance (शिक्षण भत्ता) because as per order dated

17.10.2005, by which petitioner was sent/appointed as Instructor/Teacher the said appointment was for fixed term only, and in the same it was specially mention that while working the post of Instructor/teacher, he is not entitled for any teaching allowance as such he cannot claim the benefit as prayed by him in the present case, so the same is liable to be dismissed.

Thus on the basis of pleading/document filed by parties, in short the controversy to be considered in the present case is "Whether the applicant/Shri Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi is entitled for Teaching Allowance/शिक्षण भत्ता,

As per undisputed facts of the present case in response to advertisement dated 16.04.2004, the person who was working in LOCO Workshop Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow, were invited to submit their application for appointment/filling up for the post of Instructor in the scale of Rs.4500/- to Rs.7000/- pm to work in BTC (Basic Training Centre) LOCO Workshop Northern Railway Charbagh, Lucknow.

In response to the same, workman submitted his candidature and declared successful.

And on 16.08.2005, an order was issued by respondent no.2/Principal, System Technical School, Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow, reproduced herein below:-

3018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कार्यालय संख्या - 18

आधार पशिक्षण केन्र चारबाग-लखनऊ के अनुदेशक वेतनमान 4500-7000 के चयन हेतु 28/02/05 को लिखित परीक्षा तथा 17/05/05 को सम्पन्न साक्षात्कार परीक्षा के फलस्वरूप वरिष्ठ कार्र्मक अधिकारी (यां०), प्रधान कार्यालय के पत्रांक- SPO/M/RKS/2005 के अनुसार स्क्रीनिंग कमेटी द्वारा निम्नलिखित कर्मचारियों को अनुदेशक पद के लिए प्रोविजनल पेनल पर रखने के लिए योग्य पाया गया है।

क्र . स ं .	न ा म / सर्वश्री	ट्र े ड
1 .	ग ो प ा ल न ा र ा यण मिश्रनुदेशक /BTC	अनुदेशक (डीजल/मैके०)
2 .	हरीश कुमार श्रीवास्तव-एमएफडी. 572	अनुदेशक (डीजल/मैके०)
3 .	र ा जन लाल गुप्ता अनुदेशक/बीटीसी	अनुदेशक (डीजल/विद्युत)
4 .	ओम पकाश-एमसीओ. 113	अनुदेशक (मशीनिष्ट)
5 .	ि वजय बहादुर यादव-अनुदेशक/बीटीसी	अनुदेशक (टूलमेकर)
6 .	र ा म पकाश-वेल्डिग-63	अनुदेशक (वेल्डिग)
7 .	अ ि खलेश चन्र द्विवेदी-जेपीएम/बीटीसी	अनुदेशक (मिलराइट)
8 .	र ा म अवतार यादव-अनुदेशक/बीटीसी	अनुदेशक (इले०पी. ओ. एच.)

पर्यवेक्षक प्रशिक्षण केन्र,

चारबाग लखनऊ।

Thereafter on 17.10.2005, Principal, System Technical School, Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow, issued a letter by which Shri Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi was sent/appointed as Instructor/Teacher, appointment was for fixed term only, the same is reproduced herein below:-

कार्यालय आदेश संख्या - 23

मुख्य कारखाना पबंधक के आदेश सख्या 18 दिनांक 16/08/05 के तहत श्री अखिलेश चन्र द्विवेदी-जे०पी०एम०/ बीटीसी/चारबाग, लखनऊ वेतनमान 4000-6000 का चयन अनुदेशक मिलराइट) वेतनमान 4500-7000 में हो गया है।

तद्नुसार श्री अखिलेश चन्र द्विबंदी-जे०पी०एम० का वेतन निर्धारण कर वेतन रूपये 5125/-वेतनमान 4500-7000 अनुदेशक (मिलराइट) के पद पर दिनांक 25/07/05 से स्थापित किया जाता है। नियमानुसार निधारित टेन्योर की अवधि 8 वर्ष के लिए देय होगा। चात इन्हे अपने कैडर में वापस कर दिया जाएगा तथा इन्हें शिक्षण भत्ता देय नहीं होगा।

उपरोक्त विषय पर सक्षम आधिकारी का अनुमोदन पाप्त है।

प्रधानाचार्य

पर्यवेक्षक पशिक्षण केंन्र,

चारबाग-लखनऊ।

Further it does not in dispute rather admitted by claimant himself that in pursuance to order dated 17.10.2005, passed by Principal, System Technical School, Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow, he has joined on the post of Instructor/Teacher, as such claimant is bound by the terms and condition as mentioned in the order dated 17.10.2005.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3019

Further on the basis of the material on record, in respect to the matter in controversy a dispute has been raised between parties i.e. workman/Shri Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi and Chief Factory Manger, LOCO Workshop/respondent no.1 before the श्रेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (कें दीय), सेक्टर एच, अलीगंज, लखनऊ, the said authority decided controversy in question by order dated 27.10.2015, reproduced herein below:-

स० एल/120 ई/लीगल सेल/2015

क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (केंदीय)

सेक्टर एच अलीगंज

लखनऊ

विषय: ID Act 1947 ID between the management of Northern Railway Lucknow and URK Union, Lucknow श्री अखिलेश चन्र द्विवेदी, इन्स्ट्रक्टर को इन्स्ट्रक्टर टीचिंग एलाउन्स का भुगतान करने (अनुचित श्रमाभ्यास) से सबधित औद्योगिक विवाद।

सदर्भ आपकी पत्रावली सं० एलकेओ.8 (1-20) 2015 दि. 7.10.15.

श्री अखिलेश चन्र द्विवेदी, टेक्नीशियन 2 वेतनमान 4000-6000 को दि.14.1.2003 से जेपीएम एक्स कैडर पोस्ट पर समान वेतनमान में बीटीसी चारबाग, लखनऊ में पोस्ट किया गया था।

दिनाक 16.04.2004 द्वारा प्रकाशित विज्ञापन के अनुसार बीटीसी चारबाग में अनुदेशक के रिक्त पदों वेतनमान 4500 से 7000 में समान वेतनमान में कार्यरत कर्मचारियों प्रार्थनापत्र के माध्यम से आवेदन की मांग की गई थी। समुचित मात्रा में आवेदन पत्र न प्राप्त होने के परिप्रेक्ष्य में प्रधान कार्यालय नई दिल्ली के आदेशानुसार पुनः आवेदन की मांग की गयी कि समान अथवा एक निचले वेतनमान में कार्यरत कर्मचारियों से भी आवेदन मागे एव स्वीकार किए जा सकते है. मांग की गई।

श्री अखिलेश चन्र द्विवेदी वेतनमान 4000- 6000 ने भी आवेदन किया था। श्री द्विवेदी तथा अन्य प्रार्थना पत्रों पर विचार करते हुए दिनांक 24.02.2005 को लिखित परीक्षा ली गई तथा दिनाक 17.06.2005 को साक्षात्कार परीक्षा ली गई।

कार्यालय आदेश सं० 18 दि० 16.8.2005 के माध्यम से श्री द्विवेदी एवं अन्य को अनुदेशक पद वेतनमान 45000-7000 में सफल घोषित किया गया तथा कार्यालय आदेश सं० 23 दिनां 17.10.2005 द्वारा नियमित कार्यकाल आठ वर्ष हेतु इनकी अनुदशक पद पर वेतनदर रू.5125 वेतनमान 4500-7000 में नियुक्त कर ली गई। (प्रति संलग्न)

काया आदेश स० 23 दि 17.10.2005 में यह स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेख है कि इन्हें शिक्षा नादेय नहीं होगा।

सलग्नक उपराक्त

कृते मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंधक

3०२० रेल इंजन कारखाना,

चारबाग, लख

श्रेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (कें दीय), सेक्टर एच, अलीगंज, लखनऊ, has not been challenged by claimant/Shri Akhilesh Chandra, before the any authority so the same has attained finality.

Thus keeping in view finding given by श्रेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (कें दीय), सेक्टर एच, अलीगंज, लखनऊ, as well as facts that claimant has not disputed the fact rather admitted by him that as per order passed on 17.10.2005, by the Principal, System Technical School, Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow, he joined on the post of Instructor/Teacher, work in the BTC (Basic Training Centre) LOCO Workshop Northern Railway Charbagh, Lucknow, and discharged his duties, in the said order it is mentioned that "नियमानुसार निधारित टेन्योर की अवधि 8 वर्ष के लिए देय होगा। चात इन्हे अपने कैडर में वापस कर दिया जाएगा तथा इन्हें शिक्षण भत्ता देय नहीं होगा ", so in view of the said facts once the petitioner has accepted the said condition so he cannot reside from the admission as made by him by means of the said order.

Accordingly in view of the above said facts, as claimant/Shri Akhilesh Chand Dwivedi, in pursuance to order dated 17.10.2005, issued by respondent no.2 in which it is specifically provided that he is not entitled for any Teaching Allowance (इन्हें शिक्षण भत्ता देय नहीं होगा), joined on the said post, and started working and discharging his duties as Instructor/Teacher in the BTC (Basic Training Centre) LOCO Workshop Northern Railway Charbagh, Lucknow, so workman is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in the present case.

3020 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the foregoing reasons the workman is not entitled for any relief as per the Reference No.41011/56/2016 (IR(B-I)) Dated: 18.08.2017, and the same is answered accordingly.

Lucknow,

9th March, 2026.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

[सं. एल-12012/84/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 607.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.78/2002) 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-12012/84/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Sri P. Satyanarayana,

S/o P. Ramappa,

R/o. Patha Paliyam vill.,

ADCC bank, Dharmavaram,

Baddalapuram Post, Kanaganapalli Mandal

Dist. Anantapur

Anantpur.- 515671 … Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3021 And

The Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road, Tirupati A.P …Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/84/2000-IR(B.I) dated 14.07.2000 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.72/2000, 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:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Dharmavaram Branch in terminating Sri P. Sathyanarayana Messenger, from the services of the Bank by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.03.1997 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 78/2002 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.

3022 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019.

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1985 to 1996, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 12 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with that it's a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated 16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon'ble High court of A.P.. It is specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon'ble High[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3023 court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon'ble High Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.

8. Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre. It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice.

9. The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87, 16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90 stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees 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".

3024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3025 temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon.

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 under3026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated.

19. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W4. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 bank issued notification Ex. W2 Service Certificate Ex. W3 & Ex.W4 are the Service certificates.

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 Non Messenger Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non- Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22. Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in this Award.

23. Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3027

I. Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated 27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Dharmavaram branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri P. Satyanarayana, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25. Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997."

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, "Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed." Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the3028 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not."

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3029

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:-

3030 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 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"

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3031

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,

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order.

33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no3032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order.

34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35. Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation's affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3033

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 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon'ble Apex Court have held:-

"Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively."

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable.

38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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, the3034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Workman himself admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40. However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any authority.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42. In this context the reference of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3035 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.

of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

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:-

3036 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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,

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:-

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman.

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3037 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.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri P. Satyanarayana, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on this the 24th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri P. Satyanarayana MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah

Ex.W1: Photocopy of notification

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex. W3: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex. W4: Photocopy of Service certificate

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 10.8.983038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

का.आ. 608.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकार के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, धनबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 16/2020) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था

[सं. एल- ³⁰⁰¹¹/³/²⁰²⁰-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 608.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 16/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-30011/3/2020-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey, Presiding Officer

For the Employers :- None.

For the workman :- None.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:-Petroleum Dated 02/02/2026

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),Government Of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.L-30011/3/2020 IR(M) dated 09/07/2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ranchi and their workman through General Secretary, Krantikari Ispat Mazdoor Sangh, B.S. City, Bokaro and workman Sri Subedar Mukesh Kumar for adjudication by this Tribunal:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3039

"Whether action of the management of M/s Mukesh Kumar (Sri Subedar Mukesh Kumar) and the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ranchi Territory in non-payment of full and final settlement of the dues to 15 nos. of workers (as per list of the union) engaged in petrol pump, BP-Bokaro of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

Sl. No.	Name	Designation	Date of appointment	Date of termination
01	Firdous Alam	Cashier	01.10.2018	09.04.2019
02	Ejaz Ahmad	Four Cout Supervisor	08.02.2018	01.04.2019
03	Rajesh Shaw	Four Cout Supervisor	11.01.2018	01.04.2019
04	Chandra Shekhar	DSM	03.03.2018	01.04.2019
05	Pawan Kewat	DSM	11.01.2018	09.04.2019
06	Chitranjan Goswami	DSM	13.09.2018	09.04.2019
07	Kailas Kewat	DSM	22.02.2018	09.04.2019
08	Prem Prakash Manjhi	DSM	01.08.2018	09.04.2019
09	Sunil Kewat	DSM	07.03.2018	23.04.2019
10	Ramesh Kewat	DSM	10.02.2018	08.04.2019
11	Md. Naimuddin Ansari	DSM	01.09.2018	01.04.2019
12	Vijay Kewat	DSM	27.02.2018	22.04.2019
13	Bhola Nath Kewat	DSM	11.01.2018	03.04.2019
14	Akhilesh Kr. Mahto	DSM	11.01.2018	09.04.2019
15	Kailas Kewat-ll	DSM	02.03.2018	09.04.2019

2. This case is taken through Special Campaign organized by Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India for disposal of pending cases.

3. On receiving order no. L-30011/3/2020-IR(M) dated 09/07/2020 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 16 of 2020 was registered on 19.08.2020 and thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents and the witnesses in support of their claims.

4. After service of notice, both parties appeared previously and filed their authorities, W/S and subsequently rejoinder. It further appears that on 28.01.2026 Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate for the workman appeared and submitted that no instruction received to proceed further. Sri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the management appeared and submitted that all fifteen concerned workmen received all dues for which he filed receipt of memo as such case may be closed. Sri Sudha Mishra, Advocate for the management has no objection and all the parties put their signature on order sheet and prayed to close the case.

5. Hence,

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a "No Dispute Award" be drawn up in respect of the above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

[सं. एल – 41011/79/2013-आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक3040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O. 609.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 68/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway and their workmen.

[No. L-41011/79/2013- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

General Secretary, Rail Sewak Sangh, J-422, Indralok Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.

…Claimant

(Espousing The Cause of Shri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava)

Versus

Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, DRM'S Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.

…Respondent

By order No.L-41011/79/2013 IR(B-I) Dated: 18.10.2013, the present industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

"क्या पूवोत्तर रेल प्रशासन, लखनऊ मंडल द्वारा श्नमिक श्री दिनेश कुमार श्रीवास्तव, पानीवाला की सेवाए दिनाक

20-07-1999 से समाप्त किया जाना न्यायोचित एवं बैध है? यदि नहीं तो वह किस रहत को पाने का हकदार है?"

Accordingly, the present I.D. Case No. 68/2013 has registered before this tribunal.

Thereafter claim statement and another documents, have been filed by parties.

Shri Rajendra Prashad Yadav, legal representative for respondent, on the basis of averment as made in paragraph 3 of the written statement, as submitted that the present claim petition is barred by limitation, relevant portion quoted herein below:-

Accordingly he request that the present claim petition may be dismissed as barred by delay & laches.

Shri SN Srivastava L/R for workman in rebuttal to the above said objection taken on behalf of respondent that the present case cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay/laches in this regard he placed reliance on pleading as made in the rejoinder affidavit, specially the evidence on affidavit filed on behalf of Shri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava in support of his claim petition, relevant portion reproduced herein below:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3041

Accordingly Shri SN Srivastava argued that is without following the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, the services of the workman was retrenched/terminated on 20.07.1999, so he made representation to authority concern when no paid then he raised conciliation proceeding before the Assistant labour Commissioner(Central) Lucknow.

As no amicable settlement taken place between the parties, the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) Lucknow, referred the matter to the appropriate authority by Report No.LKO-8(1-54)/2009 Dated 07/08/2013.

Thereafter by order dated 18.10.2013, present reference has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication as such there is no delay and laches on the part of the workman in approaching this Tribunal against the illegal arbitrary action of respondent, termination/retrenching the services of workman/Shri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava with effect from 20.07.1999, so the preliminary objection taken by respondent may be rejected and matter be heard on merit.

I have heard Shri SN Srivastava L/R for workman, and

Shri Rajendra Prashad Yadav, L/R for respondent, perused the record.

As per the admitted facts of the present case Shri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava/claimant, was initially appointed as Seasonal Water-Man/ casual employer on 01.04.1979, and posted under Station Supdt, Nowgarh of Northern Railway, and in the said capacity he work up till 19.07.1999, thereafter on 20.07.1999, his services were retrenched/terminated.

From the material on record filed by parties the submission made on behalf of workman, by Shri SN Srivastava, that after the retrenchment of his services, workman made representation raising his grievances to the authority concerned, in this regard neither any averment have been made in the claim statement filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava/workman nor any representation/documents filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava/workman, to establish the said facts are annexed so the said argument is without any material on record, has got no force, rejected.

Further as per own case of workman/claimant, his services were retrenched on 20.07.1999, thereafter he raise his grievances before the cancelation officer for conciliation in the year 2009, however no explanation has been given by the application, that why he kept silenced/not raise any grievances as per the provision of ID Act 1947, for the period of nearly 10 years for conciliation, before the authority concerned as such even if argument made on behalf of claimant/workman that claimant raised the Industrial Dispute as per the relevant provision of ID act 1947, in the year 2009 against the retrenchment order dated 20.07.1999, and after reference was made on 18.10.2013, in response to which the present claim petition has been filed by claimant on 04.12.2013, raising his grievances, on the basis of facts no relief can be granted in the present case as per Section 10 of the Act 1946, which reads as under:-

Because in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and "another, 2015 (15) SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered impact of delay and laches in Reference made under Section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act and observed in paragraph No. 14 as under:

3042 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government forms an opinion that 'any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended'. The words 'industrial dispute exists' are of paramount importance unless there is an existence of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in near future), no reference is to be made. Thus, existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the reference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision whether a reference is to be made or not, the appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making of reference is only an administrative function. At the same time, on the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the existence of the industrial dispute or the apprehension of an industrial dispute is necessary. Such existence/apprehension of industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material on record. Since, we are not concerned with the satisfaction dealing with cases where there is apprehended industrial dispute, discussion that follows would confine to existence of an industrial dispute. Dispute or difference arises when one party make a demand and other party rejects the same. It is held by this Court in number of cases that before raising the industrial dispute making of demand is a necessary pre-condition. In such a scenario, if the services of a workman are terminated and he does not make the demand and/or raise the issue alleging wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within reasonable time and raises the same after considerable lapse of period, whether it can be said that industrial dispute still exist. Since there is no period of limitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the dispute even belatedly. However, if the dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to whether such a dispute still exists? Thus, notwithstanding the fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making the industrial dispute seized to exist. Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory explanation for these laches and delays and demonstrate that the circumstances discloses that issue is still alive, delay would not come in his way because of the reason that law of limitation has no application. On the other hand, if because of such delay dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as "dead", then it would be non-existent dispute which cannot be referred."

Further in the case of Maan Singh vs. State of HP & Others, 2025 (187) FLR 742, by Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court, it has been held as under:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3043

17. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavan Kutty, 2000 (84) FLR 673 (SC), the Apex Court as such had set aside the reference made by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was done after seven years of order dismissing the respondent from service and it was held that when the dispute is stale, the same could not be a subject-matter of reference and the power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rationale manner. The said view was followed in Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Workmen Represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, (2006) 2 SCC 329, wherein it has been held that though there can be no formula for universal application regarding the delay in seeking the reference, but it would depend upon the facts of the individual case and it was noticed that the dispute pertained to the period 1976-77 and had been raised after about a decade and the claimants were thus not entitled to any relief. Resultantly, the matter was remanded to the High Court to consider the matter afresh by taking into account the principle set-out as on the earlier occasion, the reference had been answered in favour of the workmen, which had been upheld by the learned Single Judge and thereafter approved by the Division Bench. Thus, the Apex Court even at the belated stage as such has kept this fact in mind while allowing the Civil Appeals.

Moreover in this regard Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M.D./Chief Manager, Jaipur Agar, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur v. General Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Workers Organisation, Jaipur, 2024 (182) FLR 892, in which it has been held as under:

3044 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Chamundeshwari Sugars Ltd. V. Н.Т. Raju (Since Deceased) by L.Rs. & others 2025 (184) FLR 721 has held as under:

Further the Hon'ble Himanchal Pradesh High Court in the case of Slig Ram v. Executive Director (Personnel) & another 2025 (184) 1043 has held as under:

Accordingly, it has been held that workman is not entitled for any relief.

In case of The State of Himachal Pradesh and other vs. Smt. Tara Devi reported in 2025 LLR(740) it has been held as under:-

And in case of Saryu Ravidas @ Seryu Rabidas & Others vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Others, reported in 2025(186) FLR (154) it has been held as under:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3045

In the case of Amna Khatoon & Others v.s. Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Vice-Chancellor, Aligarh & Another [2025(186)FLR 590], The Hon'ble Allahabad Court has dismissed the claim as raised by the claimant/Petitioner, on the ground of limitation, and also on the grounds that selection of the juniors were not challenged by the workman/petitioner, who was superseded, relevant paragraph reads as under:-

Reverting to facts of the present as per undisputed facts, the services of workman was retrenched on 20.07.1999, thereafter he has not made any correspondent in the matter in question, however in this regard an argument has been made by Shri SN Srivastava, LR of workman, that workman has made representation to the authority concern aggrieved by retrenchment order but there is neither any pleading nor any representation annexed by the workman along with the claim petition or brought on record, so the said facts cannot be accepted without any pleadings/material on record.

Further in the claim statement/pleadings/document, it was not pleaded or brought on record, on behalf of workman that why he has not taken any steps after retrenchment of his services on 20.07.1999, and thereafter he approached the Assistant Regional Commissioner in the year 2009, raising his grievances by way of conciliation, who had referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication by reference order dated 18.10.2013.

Accordingly as per undisputed facts in the present case the cause of action has a reason on the part of workman, on 20.07.1999, when his services was retrenched and on the basis of the same the reference has made on 18.10.2013, for the purpose of adjudication as per the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(Section 10 of the Act), so the same is nearly 14 years from date of retrenchment as such the same is liable to be dismissed, on the ground of unexplained delay & laches.

For the foregoing reasons the workman is not entitled for any relief as per the Reference No.L-41011/79/2013 IR(B-I) Dated: 18.10.2013, and the same is answered accordingly.

Lucknow, JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

9th March, 2026.

3046 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

का.आ. 610.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार गोमते ेिनाइट्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और मिस्टर शरणप्पा रेडडरू के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 74/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-154]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 610.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 74/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Gomate Granites and Mr. Sharanappa Redderu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-(IR(M)-154]

SALONI, Dy. Director

DATED : 10th OCTOBER 2025

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

Mr. Sharanappa Redderu,

The Mines Manager,

S/o Cjatrappa Redderu,

Gomatesh Granites,

At Gudur SB, Hirekondagalli Post, Hunagund Taluk,

Hire Kodagalli Post,

BAGALKOT -587 154.

Hunagund Taluk,

BAGALKOT – 587 154.

I Party : Shri Muralidhara Advocate II Party : Shri K R Anand Advocate

1. The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity 'the Act') by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Gomatesh Granites who was refused with employment w.e.f. 25.07.2018.

2. After registering the case the date of hearing was fixed as 10.12.2019. The matter came to be posted for appearance of the II Party and to file Objection/Counter Statement of the II Party. During the pendency of Industrial Dispute the 2nd Party filed a Memo that the matter has been settled with the dues that the I Party is entitled for and hence this dispute may be closed based on the documents enclosed along with the memo. The Memo is counter signed by the 1st Party agreeing to the terms of the memo filed by the 2nd Party and requested the Petition to be closed.

3. Perused the records. The 2nd Party has filed a Memo dated 21.03.2025 which bears the signature of the 2nd Party counsel and the 1st Paty as well specifying the exact terms of settlement which has already taken place as ful[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3047 and final settlement of the issue on hand. Therefore in view of the above, the Memo is recorded and the praer is allowed. The Petition is allowed by passing Award in thefollowing lines.

Petition is is allowed passing an Award to the tune of Rs. 1,53,834.00 in terms of the settlement entered into between the Parties and by recording full and final payment of the said Amount by the 2nd Party to the 1st Party as per the SBI, Ilkal Branch, Cheque No. 704335 dated 05.02.2022 and voucher dated 05.02.2022 dully acknowledged by the 1st Party.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 10.10.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 611.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार इंडियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड, एलपीजी बॉटलिंग प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और कर्नाटका पेट्रोलियम एंड गैस वर्क र्स यूनियन के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 45/2025) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-16]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 611.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 45/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Indian Oil Corporation Limited, LPG Bottling Plant and Karnataka Petroleum and Gas Workers Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-(IR(M)-16]

SALONI, Dy. Director

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

The General Secretary,

The Plant Chief Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited, LPG Bottling Plant, Devanagondi, Hosakote Division,

Karnataka Petroleum and Gas Workers Union, CITU Office, Udayanagar, Dooravaninagar Post, BANGALORE – 560 016.

BANGALORE – 560 067.

3048 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I Party     :     General Secretary
II Party     :    Self

1. The Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Bengaluru vide Order No. 95(FOC/37)2025-B4 dated 16.06.2025 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bangalore and its contractors M/s. Vishal Enterprises, M/s HR Square, M/s. Partner Vishal Testing and Services and M/s Hindustan Fabricator in refusing to settle the charter of demands raised by the union is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the union is entitled to?"

2. After registering the case the date of hearing was fixed as 04.08.2025 and then posted to 29.09.2025. On 29.09.2025 Sri V M Sundar, General Manager, for the II Party appeared and filed a memo stating that the matter has been settled between the Parties vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.03.2024. Since there was no representation for the I Party, the matter was adjourned to 13.11.2025, 01.01.2026 and 28.01.2026. On 28.01.2026 the General Secretary of the 1st Party Union appeared and filed a Memo stating that both the parties have settled the matter amicably across the table and the matter is resolved and requested to close this case henceforth.

3. Perused the records. The II Party Management has filed Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.03.2024 which bears the Signature of the General Secretary of the 1st Party Union who did espouse the matter for and on behalf of the workmen. Therefore, the Memo filed by the I Party dated 28.01.2026 and the Memo filed by the II Party dated 29.09.2025 along with Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.03.2024 are recorded. Accordingly, the reference is answered in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement

Reference is answered in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.03.2024 as settled. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 3rd February 2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 612.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार

आईओसीएल, एलपीजी बॉटलिंग प्लांट; मेसर्स वी के इंटरप्राइजेज बॉटलिंग प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री

रमेश के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.-

27/2012) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/28/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 612.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 27/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant; M/s V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant and Shri Ramesh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-30012/28/2012-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3049

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG Bottling

Sri Ramesh,

S/o late Manjunatha,

Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE.

No. 83, Chaitan Nialaya B narayanapura, Dooravani Nagar Post, BANGALORE – 560 016.

2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling

Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE .

I Party : Kumara L Advocate

II Party : 1. Sri B C Prabhakar Advocate

2. Exparte

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-30012/28/2012-IR(M) dated 06.08.2012 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. V K Enterprises, a contractor of IOCL, Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore in terminating the services of S/Shri Ramesh S/o Late manjunath w.e.f. October, 2009, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After registering the case as CR No. 27/2012 notices were issues to both the parties. In response to notice the I Party and II Party No. 1 entered appearance through their respective counsel. II Party No. 2, even after having been afforded ample opportunities to mark appearance, kept aloof from the Proceedings and eventually is set exparte.

3. The I Party filed Claim Statement stating that he has joined the service of II Party No. 1 and 2 on permanent basis on a month salary of Rs. 12.00 around 1987 as General Employee and was put to discharge the duty of Loading and Unloading, Handling and other miscellaneous works. The action of the II Party was against the law and principles of natural justice. He is completely relying upon the earnings from his employment under the II Party. At the time of termination he was getting Rs. 6,000.00 as monthly salary. II Party has not granted any terminal benefits to him nor any notice of termination. He raised a dispute before the ALC(C), Bangalore against the II Party, but the latter did not take part in the conciliation, hence, this claim petition seeking an order directing the II Party to reinstate him into service and to grant terminal and other benefits to him as per law.

4. II Party No. 1 contested the dispute maintaining that the I Party herein is not an employee of the II Party No. 1 corporation; he is a contract labourer working under the contractor II Party No. 2; the works of haulage and housekeeping were given on contract to II Party No. 2 V K Enterprises; the II Party No. 2 has deployed their workforce / labourers for carrying out the works undertaken on contract basis; it is the contractor who allots the works, supervises the works and pay wages, maintains Attendance and Wage Register of its labourers and complies with all statutory requirements covering the labourers under the ESI and Provident Fund Benefits . II Party No. 1 makes payment to the II Party No. 2 against the bills submitted by it; II Party No. 1 closed the operation of its Whitefield Plant w.e.f. 17.08.2009 and shifted the entire activities to Devanagonthi, LPG Bottling Plant and accordingly, the activities of Bangalore Plant / Whitefield were closed thereon. In the dispute raised before the ALC(C), Bangalore, I Party has clearly admitted to have been employed by II Party No. 2; he cannot make out any3050 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] grievance about the termination or to seek any relief against II Party No. 1. Hence, the claim petition is sought to be rejected.

5. In addition to the query put in the schedule of reference, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial based on the rival pleadings raised by the respective parties.

6. Then the matter was posted for Evidence of I Party, the I Party filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief on 26.05.2017 and prayed for time to submit documents. Thereafter despite having afforded ample opportunities, he did not prefer either to produce documents or to mount the witness box offering himself as a witness to prove the affidavit filed by him and to subject himself to cross-examination. Accordingly, the affidavit tendered by him is discarded from record by my learned predecessor as per the proceeding dated 22.11.2019 and the case was posted for Evidence of the II Party. Initially Mr. Bishnu Minz, Chief Manager (Plant) is examined from the II Party No. 1 in chief. Since the said witness could not tender himself for cross-examination, the learned counsel for II Party took leave of this court to get the evidence tendered by him in chief examination to be struck off from record and to examine Mr. Girish Shimmoga Varadaraju, Chief Manager (Plant) as a witness on its side and got him examined as MW 1. Despite repeated presence of MW 1 tendering himself for cross-examination, neither the I Party nor his counsel did turn up to cross-examine the witness. The individual notices issued to the I Party in person and to his counsel on board stood returned unserved with the postal endorsement "Insufficient address" and "No such Person in this Address" respectively. As it is genuinely found that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and by causing MW 1 to be present before this Tribunal anymore, this Tribunal is constrained to record cross- examination of MW 1 by the I Party as NIL and the case is posted for final argument.

7. The Argument advanced by the II Party No. 1 is heard in detail.

8. Issues No. 1 and 2: At the very threshold the learned counsel for II Party No. 1 urged by placing reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in V K Raj industries vs. Labour Court and others (FJR Vol 59 Allahabad 304) that as no evidence is produced by the I Party challenging the validity of his termination, he must fail in toto. In the ruling cited supra it is well settled that

9. The entire back history of the proceedings of the case is revealed in the afore discussed paragraphs. The failure / refusal of the I Party to tender himself for cross-examination and also his failure to subject MW 1 for cross- examination has literally marked willful abandonment of the claim by the I Party or his absolute failure to put forth a valid and genuine case. The principle laid down in the ruling cited supra gives a complete answer to the query raised in the given case. Therefore, the only conclusion to be followed is that the I Party failed in proving a genuine cause or claim which leads to the total dismissal of the instant industrial dispute.

10. With this view, these issues are answered against the claimant I Party. Hence, the following award.

Reference is dismissed. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 27th February 2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3051

का.आ. 613.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार

पी. वरदराजू के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट

(रिफरेन्स न.- 28/2012) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/29/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 613.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant; M/s V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant and Shri P Varadaraju which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-30012/29/2012-(IR(M)

SALONI, Dy. Director

DATED : 5th FEBRUARY 2026

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

Bottling Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE.

Sri P Varadaraju, S/o V Puttaraju, No. 4/2 Near Water Tank, B Narayanpura, Dooravaninagar, Whitefield Post, BANGALORE – 560 016.

Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE .

I Party : Kumara L, Advocate

II Party : 1. Sri B C Prabhakar Advocate

2. Exparte

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-30012/29/2012-IR(M) dated 06.08.2012 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. V K Enterprises, a contractor of IOCL, Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore in terminating the services of Shri P. Varadaraju, S/o V Puttaraju w.e.f. June, 2009, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"3052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. After registering the case as CR No. 28/2012 notices were issues to both the parties. In response to notice the I Party and II Party No. 1 entered appearance through their respective counsel. II Party No. 2, even after having been afforded ample opportunities to mark appearance, kept aloof from the Proceedings and eventually is set exparte.

3. The I Party filed Claim Statement stating that he has joined the service of II Party No. 1 and 2 on permanent basis on a month salary of Rs. 14.00 around 1990 as General Employee and was put to discharge the duty of Loading and Unloading, Handling and other miscellaneous works. On June 2008 when the I Party had come for work, the II Party refused to take him to service for no reason. The action of the II Party was against the law and principles of natural justice. He is completely relying upon the earnings from his employment under the II Party. At the time of termination he was getting Rs. 6,000.00 as monthly salary. II Party has not granted any terminal benefits to him nor any notice of termination. He raised a dispute before the ALC(C), Bangalore against the II Party, but the latter did not take part in the conciliation, hence, this claim petition seeking an order directing the II Party to reinstate him into service and to grant terminal and other benefits to him as per law.

4. II Party No. 1 contested the dispute maintaining that the I Party herein is not an employee of the II Party No. 1 corporation; he is a contract labourer working under the contractor II Party No. 2; the works of haulage and housekeeping were given on contract to II Party No. 2 V K Enterprises; the II Party No. 2 has deployed their workforce / labourers for carrying out the works undertaken on contract basis; it is the contractor who allots the works, supervises the works and pay wages, maintains Attendance and Wage Register of its labourers and complies with all statutory requirements covering the labourers under the ESI and Provident Fund Benefits . II Party No. 1 makes payment to the II Party No. 2 against the bills submitted by it; II Party No. 1 closed the operation of its Whitefield Plant w.e.f. 17.08.2009 and shifted the entire activities to Devanagonthi, LPG Bottling Plant and accordingly, the activities of Bangalore Plant / Whitefield were closed thereon. In the dispute raised before the ALC(C), Bangalore, I Party has clearly admitted to have been employed by II Party No. 2; he cannot make out any grievance about the termination or to seek any relief against II Party No. 1. Hence, the claim petition is sought to be rejected.

5. In addition to the query put in the schedule of reference, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial based on the rival pleadings raised by the respective parties.

6. While so it is reported before this Tribunal that the I Party workman Mr. Varadaraju expired and the matter was posted for taking steps to implead his legal representatives. Despite having afforded ample opportunities no legal representatives of the I Party workman did come on record, the matter was then posted for Evidence of the II Party. Initially Mr. Bishnu Minz, Chief Manager (Plant) is examined from the II Party No. 1 in chief. Since the said witness could not tender himself for cross-examination, the learned counsel for II Party took leave of this court to get the evidence tendered by him in chief examination to be struck off from record and to examine Mr. Girish Shimmoga Varadaraju, Chief Manager (Plant) as a witness on its side and got him examined as MW 1. As the I Party workman expired and no legal heirs have come on record to pursue the case, the Evidence tendered by MW 1 remains unchallenged.

7. Eventually the Argument advanced by the II Party No. 1 is heard in detail.

8. Issues No. 1 and 2: The history of the case narrated above clearly indicates that the I Party could not pursue the case subsequent to the submission of his claim statement due to his untimely death. Though he was represented by his counsel until then, subsequent to his death the learned counsel did not take any effective steps to bring the legal heirs of the deceased workman on record. So literally this Tribunal is incapacitated to put on record any valid case of the I Party workman to be controverted by the contesting II Party.

9. The factum of death of the I Party is seen recorded by my learned predecessor as per the proceedings dated 15.03.2017 as is informed by One Mr. Padmanabhan, who claimed to have worked with the workman Mr. Varadaraju that the latter expired about two years ago. Copy of the death certificate is not forthcoming from the side of the I Party. As already observed, no legal heirs have come on record to prosecute the case anymore. So much so, necessarily the claim stands abated as necessary steps have not been taken in time to implead the legal heirs / legal representative of the late workman or any steps to condone the delay in impleading the LRs and to set aside the abatement of the claim. In this scenario this reference is to be answered as the claim stands abated as the I Party workman died long ago without the matter being persued by any of the legal representatives. Hence, the following award.

Reference is recorded as abated. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 5th February 2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3053

का.आ. 614.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार आईओसीएल, एलपीजी बॉटलिंग प्लांट; मेसर्स वी के इंटरप्राइजेज बॉटलिंग प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री एम. मणिवन्नन के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 29/2012) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/30/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 614.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant; M/s V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant and Shri M Manivannan which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-30012/30/2012-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

DATED : 5th FEBRUARY 2026

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

Sri M Manivannan,                               1.  The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant,
S/o Mahadevan, No. 17/3, B                          IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE.
Narayanapura, Dooravaninagar Post,
Whitefield Road,
BANGALORE – 16.                                2.    M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant, IOCL,
                                               Devanagundi, BANGALORE .

I Party : Kumara L Advocate

II Party : 1. Sri B C Prabhakar Advocate

2. Exparte

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-30012/30/2012-IR(M) dated 06.08.2012 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. V K Enterprises, a contractor of IOCL, Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore in terminating the services of Shri Manivannan M, S/o Shri Mahadevan w.e.f. October, 2009, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"3054 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. After registering the case as CR No. 29/2012 notices were issues to both the parties. In response to notice the I Party and II Party No. 1 entered appearance through their respective counsel. II Party No. 2, having been afforded ample opportunities to mark appearance, kept aloof from the Proceedings and eventually is set exparte.

3. The I Party filed Claim Statement stating that he has joined the service of II Party No. 1 and 2 on permanent basis on a month salary of Rs. 450.00 on 02.02.1989 as General Employee and was put to discharge the duty of Loading - Unloading, Handling and other miscellaneous work. On 06.10.2009 when the I Party had come for work the II Party refused to take him to service for no reason. The action of the II Party was against the law and principles of natural justice. He is completely relying upon the earnings from employment under the II Party. II Party has not granted any terminal benefits to him nor any notice of termination. He raised a dispute before the ALC(C), Bangalore against the II Party, but the latter did not take part in the conciliation, hence, this claim petition seeking an order directing the II Party to reinstate him into service and to grant terminal and other benefits to him as per law.

4. II Party No. 1 contested the dispute maintaining that the I Party herein is not an employee of the II Party No. 1 corporation; he is a contract labourer working under the contractor II Party No. 2; the works of haulage and housekeeping were given on contract to II Party No. 2 V K Enterprises; the II Party No. 2 has deployed their workforce / labourers for carrying out the works undertaken on contract basis; it is the contractor who allots the works, supervises the works and pay wages, maintains Attendance and Wage Register of its labourers and complies with all statutory requirements covering the labourers under the ESI and Provident Fund Benefits . II Party No. 1 makes payment to the II Party No. 2 against the bills submitted by it; II Party No. 1 closed the operation of its Whitefield Plant w.e.f. 17.08.2009 and shifted the entire activities to Devanagonthi, LPG Bottling Plant and accordingly, the activities of Bangalore Plant / Whitefield were closed thereon. In the dispute raised before the ALC(C), Bangalore, I Party has clearly admitted to have been employed by II Party No. 2; he cannot make out any grievance about the termination or to seek any relief against II Party No. 1. Hence, the claim petition is sought to be rejected.

5. In addition to the query put in the schedule of reference, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial based on rival pleadings raised by the respective parties:

6. Then the matter was posted for Evidence of I Party, the I Party filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief on 02.05.2017 and got himself examined as WW 1. Despite having afforded ample opportunities, he did not tender himself for cross-examination. Accordingly, the evidence tendered by him in his examination in chief is discarded from record by my learned predecessor as per the proceeding dated 22.11.2019 and the case was posted for Evidence of the II Party. Initially Mr. Bishnu Minz, Chief Manager (Plant) is examined from the II Party No. 1 in chief. Since the said witness could not tender himself for cross-examination, the learned counsel for the II Party took leave of this court to get the evidence tendered by him in chief examination to be struck off from record and to examine Mr. Girish Shimmoga Varadaraju, Chief Manager (Plant) as a witness on its side and got him examined as MW 1. Despite repeated presence of MW 1 tendering himself for cross-examination, neither the I Party nor his counsel did turn up to cross-examine the witness. The individual notices issued to the I Party in person and to his counsel on board stood returned unserved with the postal endorsement "Insufficient address" and "No such Person in this Address" respectively. As it is genuinely found that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and by causing MW 1 to be present before this Tribunal anymore, this Tribunal is constrained to record cross- examination of MW 1 by the I Party as NIL and the case is posted for final argument.

7. The Argument advanced by the II Party No. 1 is heard in detail.

8. Issues No. 1 and 2: At the very threshold the learned Counsel for II Party No. 1 urged by placing reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in V K Raj Industries vs. Labour Court and others (FJR Vol 59 Allahabad 304) that as no evidence is produced by the I Party challenging the validity of his termination, he must fail in toto. In the ruling cited supra it is well settled that

9. The entire back history of the proceedings of the case is revealed in the afore discussed paragraphs. The failure / refusal of the I Party to tender himself for cross-examination and also his failure to subject MW 1 for cross- examination has literally demonstrated his willful abandonment of the claim by the I Party or his absolute failure to put forth a valid and genuine case. The principle laid down in the ruling cited supra gives a complete answer to the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3055 query raised in the given case. Therefore, the only conclusion to be followed is that the I Party failed in proving a genuine cause or claim which leads to the total dismissal of the instant industrial dispute.

10. With this view, these issues are answered against the claimant I Party. Hence, the following award.

Reference is dismissed. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 5th February 2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 615.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार आईओसीएल, एलपीजी बॉटलिंग प्लांट; मेसर्स वी के इंटरप्राइजेज बॉटलिंग प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री पी. बी. कृ ष्णप्पा के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 30/2012) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/31/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 615.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 30/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant; M/s V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant and Shri P B Krishnappa which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-30012/31/2012-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

DATED : 5th FEBRUARY 2026

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB. Presiding Officer

Bottling Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE.

Sri P B Krishnappa, S/o late Ponnappa, No. 119, B Narayanapura, Dooravaninagar Post, Whitefield Road, BANGALORE – 16.

Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE .

I Party    :     Kumara L Advocate
II Party    :    1. Sri B C Prabhakar Advocate

2. Exparte3056 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-30012/31/2012-IR(M) dated 06.08.2012 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. V K Enterprises, a contractor of IOCL, Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore in terminating the services of Shri P B Krishnappa S/o Late Ponnappa w.e.f. January, 2009, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After registering the case as CR No. 30/2012 notices were issues to both the parties. In response to notice the I Party and II Party No. 1 entered appearance through their respective counsel. II Party No. 2, having been afforded ample opportunities to mark appearance, kept aloof from the Proceedings and eventually is set exparte.

3. The I Party filed Claim Statement stating that he has joined the service of II Party No. 1 and 2 on permanent basis on a month salary of Rs. 12.00 around June 1993 as General Employee and was put to discharge the duty of Loading - Unloading, Handling and other miscellaneous work. On 06.10.2009 when the I Party had come for work the II Party refused to take him to service for no reason. The action of the II Party was against the law and principles of natural justice. He is completely relying upon the earnings from employment under the II Party. At the time of termination he was getting Rs. 6,000.00 as monthly salary. II Party has not granted any terminal benefits to him nor any notice of termination. He raised a dispute before the ALC(C), Bangalore against the II Party, but the latter did not take part in the conciliation, hence, this claim petition seeking an order directing the II Party to reinstate him into service and to grant terminal and other benefits to him as per law.

4. II Party No. 1 contested the dispute maintaining that the I Party herein is not an employee of the II Party No. 1 corporation; he is a contract labourer working under the contractor II Party No. 2; the works of haulage and housekeeping were given on contract to II Party No. 2 V K Enterprises; the II Party No. 2 has deployed their workforce / labourers for carrying out the works undertaken on contract basis; it is the contractor who allots the works, supervises the works and pay wages, maintains Attendance and Wage Register of its labourers and complies with all statutory requirements covering the labourers under the ESI and Provident Fund Benefits . II Party No. 1 makes payment to the II Party No. 2 against the bills submitted by it; II Party No. 1 closed the operation of its Whitefield Plant w.e.f. 17.08.2009 and shifted the entire activities to Devanagonthi, LPG Bottling Plant and accordingly, the activities of Bangalore Plant / Whitefield were closed thereon. In the dispute raised before the ALC(C), Bangalore, I Party has clearly admitted to have been employed by II Party No. 2; he cannot make out any grievance about the termination or to seek any relief against II Party No. 1. Hence, the claim petition is sought to be rejected.

5. In addition to the query put in the schedule of reference, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial based on rival pleadings raised by the respective parties:

6. The query put in the schedule of reference is regarding the legality and justification in respect of the termination of I Party w.e.f. January 2009 , whereas, the specific plea raised by the I party in Para 5 is that he was refused job w.e.f. 06.10.2009. Said anomaly persisting in the case remains unexplained by the I Party.

7. When the matter was posted for Evidence of I Party, the I Party filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief on 02.05.2017 and got himself examined as WW 1. Despite having afforded ample opportunities, he did not tender himself for cross-examination. Accordingly, the evidence tendered by him in his examination in chief is discarded from record by my learned predecessor as per the proceeding dated 22.11.2019 and the case was posted for Evidence of the II Party. Initially Mr. Bishnu Minz, Chief Manager (Plant) is examined from the II Party No. 1 in chief. Since the said witness could not tender himself for cross-examination, the learned counsel for II Party took leave of this court to get the evidence tendered by him in chief examination to be struck off from record and to examine Mr. Girish Shimmoga Varadaraju, Chief Manager (Plant) as a witness on its side and got him examined as MW 1. Despite repeated presence of MW 1 tendering himself for cross-examination, neither the I Party nor his counsel did turn up to cross-examine the witness. The individual notices issued to the I Party in person and to his counsel on board stood returned unserved with the postal endorsement "Insufficient address" and "No such Person in this Address" respectively. As it is genuinely found that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and by causing MW 1 to be present before this Tribunal anymore, this Tribunal is constrained to record cross- examination of MW 1 by the I Party as NIL and the case is posted for final argument.

7. The Argument advanced by the II Party No. 1 is heard in detail.

8. Issues No. 1 and 2: At the very threshold the learned counsel for II Party No. 1 urged by placing reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in V K Raj industries vs. Labour Court and others (FJR Vol 59[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3057 Allahabad 304) that as no evidence is produced by the I Party challenging the validity of his termination, he must fail in toto. In the ruling cited supra it is well settled that

10. With this view, these issues are answered against the claimant I Party. Hence, the following award.

Reference is dismissed. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 5th February 2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 616.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार आईओसीएल, एलपीजी बॉटलिंग प्लांट; मेसर्स वी के इंटरप्राइजेज बॉटलिंग प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री के . प्रेमकु मार के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 31/2012) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/32/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant; M/s V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant and Shri K Premkumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-30012/32/2012-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

DATED : 5th FEBRUARY 2026

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

3058 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bottling Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE.

Sri K Premkumar, S/o Late G K Nair, No. 12, Gopika, 21st Cross, 2nd A Main, Vignan Nagar, NT Sandra Post, BANGALORE – 560 075.

Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE .

I Party : Kumara L Advocate

II Party : 1. Sri B C Prabhakar Advocate

2. Exparte

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-30012/32/2012-IR(M) dated 06.08.2012 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. V K Enterprises, a contractor of IOCL, Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore in terminating the services of Shri K Prem Kumar S/o Late G K Nair w.e.f. June, 2009, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After registering the case as CR No. 31/2012 notices were issues to both the parties. In response to notice the I Party and II Party No. 1 entered appearance through their respective counsel. II Party No. 2, having been afforded ample opportunities to mark appearance, kept aloof from the Proceedings and eventually is set exparte.

3. The I Party filed Claim Statement stating that he has joined the service of II Party No. 1 and 2 on permanent basis on a month salary of Rs. 45.00 around May 1995 as General Employee and was put to discharge the duty of Loading - Unloading, Handling and other miscellaneous work. On July 2009 when the I Party had come for work the II Party refused to take him to service for no reason. The action of the II Party was against the law and principles of natural justice. He is completely relying upon the earnings from employment under the II Party. At the time of termination he was getting Rs. 6,000.00 as monthly salary. II Party has not granted any terminal benefits to him nor any notice of termination. He raised a dispute before the ALC(C), Bangalore against the II Party, but the latter did not take part in the conciliation, hence, this claim petition seeking an order directing the II Party to reinstate him into service and to grant terminal and other benefits to him as per law.

4. II Party No. 1 contested the dispute maintaining that the I Party herein is not an employee of the II Party No. 1 corporation; he is a contract labourer working under the contractor II Party No. 2; the works of haulage and housekeeping were given on contract to II Party No. 2 V K Enterprises; the II Party No. 2 has deployed their workforce / labourers for carrying out the works undertaken on contract basis; it is the contractor who allots the works, supervises the works and pay wages, maintains Attendance and Wage Register of its labourers and complies with all statutory requirements covering the labourers under the ESI and Provident Fund Benefits . II Party No. 1 makes payment to the II Party No. 2 against the bills submitted by it; II Party No. 1 closed the operation of its Whitefield Plant w.e.f. 17.08.2009 and shifted the entire activities to Devanagonthi, LPG Bottling Plant and accordingly, the activities of Bangalore Plant / Whitefield were closed thereon. In the dispute raised before the ALC(C), Bangalore, I Party has clearly admitted to have been employed by II Party No. 2; he cannot make out any grievance about the termination or to seek any relief against II Party No. 1. Hence, the claim petition is sought to be rejected.

5. In addition to the query put in the schedule of reference, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial based on rival pleadings raised by the respective parties:

6. Though the case was repeatedly posted for I Party evidence, he did not tender himself as a witness at all, nor did he file any affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. Accordingly, Evidence of the I party was held by this Tribunal as closed and the matter was posted for Evidence of the II Party. Initially Mr. Bishnu Minz, Chief Manager[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3059 (Plant) is examined from the II Party No. 1 in chief. Since the said witness could not tender himself for cross- examination, the learned counsel for II Party took leave of this court to get the evidence tendered by him in chief examination to be struck off from record and to examine Mr. Girish Shimmoga Varadaraju, Chief Manager (Plant) as a witness on its side and got him examined as MW 1. Despite repeated presence of MW 1 tendering himself for cross-examination, neither the I Party nor his counsel did turn up to cross-examine the witness. The individual notices issued to the I Party in person and to his counsel on board stood returned unserved with the postal endorsement "Insufficient address" and "No such Person in this Address" respectively. As it is genuinely found that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and by causing MW 1 to be present before this Tribunal anymore, this Tribunal is constrained to record cross-examination of MW 1 by the I Party as NIL and the case is posted for final argument.

7. The Argument advanced by the II Party No. 1 is heard in detail.

10. With this view, these issues are answered against the claimant I Party. Hence, the following award.

Reference is dismissed. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 4th February 2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 617.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार

के . सुरेश के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स

न.- 32/2012) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/33/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant; M/s V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant and Shri K Suresh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-30012/33/2012-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director3060 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

DATED : 5th FEBRUARY 2026

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

Bottling Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE.

Sri K Suresh, S/o late Karithimme Gowda, No. 58, Rajeshwari Nilaya, Chikanna Layout, Maheshwari nagar, 2nd Cross, Mahadevapura Post, BANGALORE – 560 048.

Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE .

I Party : Kumara L Advocate

II Party : 1. Sri B C Prabhakar Advocate

2. Exparte

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-30012/33/2012-IR(M) dated 06.08.2012 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. V K Enterprises, a contractor of IOCL, Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore in terminating the services of Shri K Suresh S/o Late Karithimme Gowda w.e.f. July, 2009, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After registering the case as CR No. 32/2012 notices were issues to both the parties. In response to notice the I Party and II Party No. 1 entered appearance through their respective counsel. II Party No. 2, having been afforded ample opportunities to mark appearance, kept aloof from the Proceedings and eventually is set exparte.

3. The I Party filed Claim Statement stating that he has joined the service of II Party No. 1 and 2 on permanent basis on a month salary of Rs. 16.00 around February 1991 as General Employee and was put to discharge the duty of Loading - Unloading, Handling and other miscellaneous work. In July 2009 when the I Party had come for work the II Party refused to take him to service for no reason. The action of the II Party was against the law and principles of natural justice. He is completely relying upon the earnings from employment under the II Party. At the time of termination he was getting Rs. 6,000.00 as monthly salary. II Party has not granted any terminal benefits to him nor any notice of termination. He raised a dispute before the ALC(C), Bangalore against the II Party, but the latter did not take part in the conciliation, hence, this claim petition seeking an order directing the II Party to reinstate him into service and to grant terminal and other benefits to him as per law.

4. II Party No. 1 contested the dispute maintaining that the I Party herein is not an employee of the II Party No. 1 corporation; he is a contract labourer working under the contractor II Party No. 2; the works of haulage and housekeeping were given on contract to II Party No. 2 V K Enterprises; the II Party No. 2 has deployed their workforce / labourers for carrying out the works undertaken on contract basis; it is the contractor who allots the works, supervises the works and pay wages, maintains Attendance and Wage Register of its labourers and complies with all statutory requirements covering the labourers under the ESI and Provident Fund Benefits . II Party No. 1 makes payment to the II Party No. 2 against the bills submitted by it; II Party No. 1 closed the operation of its Whitefield Plant w.e.f. 17.08.2009 and shifted the entire activities to Devanagonthi, LPG Bottling Plant and accordingly, the activities of Bangalore Plant / Whitefield were closed thereon. In the dispute raised before the ALC(C), Bangalore, I Party has clearly admitted to have been employed by II Party No. 2; he cannot make out any grievance about the termination or to seek any relief against II Party No. 1. Hence, the claim petition is sought to be rejected.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3061

5. In addition to the query put in the schedule of reference, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial based on rival pleadings raised by the respective parties:

6. Then the matter was posted for Evidence of I Party, the I Party filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief on 02.05.2017 and got himself examined as WW 1. Despite having afforded ample opportunities, he did not tender himself for cross-examination. Accordingly, the evidence tendered by him in his examination in chief is discarded from record by my learned predecessor as per the proceeding dated 22.11.2019 and the case was posted for Evidence of the II Party. Initially Mr. Bishnu Minz, Chief Manager (Plant) is examined from the II Party No. 1 in chief. Since the said witness could not tender himself for cross-examination, the learned counsel for II Party took leave of this court to get the evidence tendered by him in chief examination to be struck off from record and to examine Mr. Girish Shimmoga Varadaraju, Chief Manager (Plant) as a witness on its side and got him examined as MW 1. Despite repeated presence of MW 1 tendering himself for cross-examination, neither the I Party nor his counsel did turn up to cross-examine the witness. The individual notices issued to the I Party in person and to his counsel on board stood returned unserved with the postal endorsement "Insufficient address" and "No such Person in this Address" respectively. As it is genuinely found that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and by causing MW 1 to be present before this Tribunal anymore, this Tribunal is constrained to record cross- examination of MW 1 by the I Party as NIL and the case is posted for final argument.

7. The Argument advanced by the II Party No. 1 is heard in detail.

10. With this view, these issues are answered against the claimant I Party. Hence, the following award.

Reference is dismissed. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 5th February 2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 618.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय

सरकार मैंगनीज ओरे (इंडिया) लिमिटेड; तिरोड़ी मैंगनीज माइंस ऑफ़ मॉयल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों

और मॉयल कामगार संघटन (इंटक) सी/ओ मॉयल लिमिटेड के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 42/2014-15) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,

प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-27011/4/2014-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक3062 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O. 618.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 42/2014-15) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Manganese Ore (I) Ltd; Tirodi Manganese Mines of the MOIL Ltd. and MOIL Kamgar Sanghatan (INTUC) C/o MOIL Ltd. which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-27011/4/2014 IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Party No.1: The Chairman Cum Managing Director (Tech.),

Manganese Ore (I) Ltd., MOIL Bhawan,

Katol Road, Nagpur-440013

The Chief (Mines), Tirodi Manganese Mines of the MOIL Ltd., PO. Tirodi,Tq. Katangi, Distt. Balaghat (MP).

Party No.2: The Secretary General, MOIL KamgarSanghatan (INTUC), C/o MOIL Ltd., MOIL Bhawan, Katol Road, Nagpur - 440013

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 managementof MOIL Ltd.and his workman Sh. Tukaram Mangal, for adjudication, as per No. L-27011/4/2014 (IR(M)) dated 04.09.2014, with the following schedule: -

"Whether the demand of the workman Sh. Tukaram Mangal, MCO Driver of Tirodi Manganese Mines of the MOIL Ltd. for the change/amendment in the date of birth in his service record from 01.07.1954 to 12.05.1955 is legal proper and justified.? If so, to what relief the workman is entitledand what other directions are necessary in the matter?

2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the parties i.e. the Union "MOIL KamgarSanghatan (INTUC)", ("the union" in short), Shri. Tukaram Mangal the petitioner and the management of MOIL Ltd., ("Party No. 1"in short). The petitioner filed Statement of Claim. The management also filed their Written Statement. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a pursis mentioning that they do not want to continue the matter and as such they withdraw the same.

As the petitioners requested to withdraw the matter, the above case is closed and an award is passed.

"Thedemand of the workman Sh. Tukaram Mangal, MCO Driver of Tirodi Manganese Mines of the MOIL Ltd. for the change/amendment in the date of birth in his service record from 01.07.1954 to 12.05.1955 is illegal,improper and unjustified. The workmanis not entitled to any relief."

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3063

का.आ. 619.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मॉयल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और मॉयल कामगार संगठन मॉयल लिमिटेड के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 21/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक

में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-17]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 619.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to MOIL Ltd. and MOIL Kamgar Sanghathan MOIL Ltd. which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-17]

SALONI, Dy. Director3064 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Party No.1: The Chairman Cum – Managing Director, MOIL Ltd., MOIL Bhawan, 1-A, Katol Road Nagpur-440013

Party No.2: The Secretary General, MOIL Kamgar Sanghathan MOIL Ltd., West Court, Katol Road, Nagpur-440013 Road, Nagpur - 440022

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 MOIL, and his workman Shri Satyanaryan Ramsagar Shukla, for adjudication, as per letter No. NGP/5(01)2024-ID(RLCNGP) dated 12.07.2024, with the following schedule:-

2. Case is called out. Both parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that notice has been served to both the parties on 05.03.2025 but despite service of notices both parties are not responding and attending the court. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. It appears that both parties are not interested to contest the case further more. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 620.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार

मैंगनीज ओरे (इंडिया) लिमिटेड; कं दरी मैंगनीज माइंस ऑफ़ मॉयल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और मॉयल

कामगार संघटन (इंटक) सी/ओ मॉयल लिमिटेड के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 46/2014-15) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो

के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-27011/8/2014-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3065

S.O. 620.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 46/2014-15) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Manganese Ore (I) Ltd; Kandri Manganese Mines of the MOIL Ltd. and MOIL Kamgar Sanghatan (INTUC) C/o MOIL Ltd. which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-27011/8/2014 (IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Party No.1: The Chairman Cum Managing Director (Tech.), Manganese Ore (I) Ltd., MOIL Bhawan, Katol Road, Nagpur-440013

The Chief (Mines), Kandri Manganese, Mines of the MOIL Ltd., PO. Kanderi, Tq. Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur- 441401

Party No.2: The Secretary General, MOIL Kamgar Sanghatan (INTUC), C/o MOIL Ltd., MOIL Bhawan, Katol Road, Nagpur - 440013

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 managementof MOIL Ltd.and his workman Sh. Tukaram Mangal, for adjudication, as per No. L-27011/8/2014 (IR(M)) dated 03.11.2014, with the following schedule: -

2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the parties i.e. the Union "MOIL Kamgar Sanghatan (INTUC)", ("the union" in short), Sh. Vijay Bitto the petitioner and the management of MOIL Ltd., ("Party No. 1"in short). The petitioner filed Statement of Claim. The management also filed their Written Statement. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a pursis mentioning that they do not want to continue the matter and as such they withdraw the same.

As the petitioners requested to withdraw the matter, the above case is closed and an award is passed.

3066 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 621.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मैथ्यूज़ टी. विंगस्टन सिक्योरिटी एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री मैथ्यू जॉर्ज के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 04/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-20]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3067

S.O. 621.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 04/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Mathews T Wingston Security Agency and Shri Mathew George which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026 (IR(M)-20]

SALONI, Dy. Director

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

I Party

II Party

Shri Mathew George,

The Proprietor,

Mathews T Wingston Security Agency, No. 10, 1st

21, Prakruti Layout, Horamavu Agara, Bangalore Urban,

Floor, Haralukunte, Kudlu,

BANGALORE – 560 043.

BANGALORE – 560 068.

I Party : None

1. The Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Bengaluru vide Order No. 95(FOC/60)2023-B4 dated 25.01.2024 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Mathews T Wingston Security Agency in refusing work to the complainant Shri Mathew Geroge, Security guard is proper, legal and justified?

If no, to what relief the said worker is entitled to?"

2. After registering the case notices were issued to both parties. The notice issued to the I Party returned with Shara "Insufficient address". Though the II Party was served with notice, none appeared. As per the records provided by the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Bangalore, both the parties were informed telephonically the next date of hearing, but the Parties orally stated that the dispute stood settled between them out of court. Inspite of having been granted ample opportunities, neither of them did prefer to mark their appearance before this Court. Even the basic claim from the side of the I Party workman did not forth come in the matter. Necessarily no counter from the opposite side as well. Therefore, no claim remains to be resolved / adjudicate by this Tribunal in the given case. Hence, there is no other go but to pass the following Award.

Reference is thus rejected. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 27.02.2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer3068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

का.आ. 622.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार

आईओसीएल, एलपीजी बॉटलिंग प्लांट; मेसर्स वी के इंटरप्राइजेज बॉटलिंग प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और

उनके कर्मकार के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट

(रिफरेन्स न.- 26/2012) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/34/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 622.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 26/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant; M/s V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.04.2026.

[No. L-30012/34/2012-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer

1. Sri Ramasundaram, No. 136, 6th 1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG Bottling

Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE.

Cross, Jai Jawan Nagar, Banaswadi Road, BANGALORE – 560 053.

Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE .

2. Sri D Rajendra, No. 136, 6th

Cross, Jai Jawan Nagar, Banaswadi Road, Subbanapalya, BANGALORE – 560 053.

3. Sri A Ashok, No. 33, M V

Nagar, 17th Cross, 5th A Main, Ramamurthynagar, Dooravaninagar Post, BANGALORE – 560 016.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3069

4. Sri S Ramu, No. 9, No. 9,

Vimala Service Station Road, 2nd Cross, 'Srinivasa Nilaya', Ramamurthynagar, Dooravaninagar Post, BANGALORE – 560 016.

5. Smt. Pushpamma, C/o Kannan

Electricals, No. 146, B Narayanapura, Dooravaninagar Post, BANGALORE – 560 016.

6. Smt. Lakshmamma, No. 63, Ramakka compound, B Narayanapura, K R Puram, Whitefield Road, BANGALORE – 560 036.

7. Smt. Premabai, C/o G R

Mahindra, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, Nanjappa Line, Ward No. 11, B Narayanapura, Dooravaninagar Post, BANGALORE – 560 016.

8. Smt. Muniyamma, No. 63,

Ramakka compound, B Narayanapura, K R Puram, Whitefield Road, BANGALORE – 560 036.

I Party : Kumara L, Advocate

II Party : 1. Sri B C Prabhakar, Advocate

2. Exparte

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-30012/34/2012-IR(M) dated 17.08.2012 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. V K Enterprises, a contractor of IOCL, Indian Bottling Plant, Bangalore in terminating the services of S/Shri Ramasundaram, D.Rajendran, A.Ashok, S.Ramu, Smt. Pushpamma, smt. Lakshmamma, Smt. Premabai and Muniyamma during July, 2009 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After registering the case as CR No. 26/2012 notices were issues to both the parties. In response to notice the I Party and II Party No. 1 entered appearance through their respective counsel. II Party No. 2 stood served with notice, but kept aloof from the Proceedings even after having been afforded ample opportunities to mark their appearance. Eventually II Party No. 2 is set exparte.

3. The I Party filed Claim Statement stating that they had joined the service of II Party No. 1 and 2 on permanent basis on a month salary of Rs. 16.00 as General Employee and was put to discharge the duty of Loading - Unloading, Handling and other miscellaneous work. On July 2009, when the I Parties had come for work, the II Party refused to take them to service for no reason. The action of the II Party was against the law and principles of natural justice. They are completely relying upon the earnings from employment under the II Party. At the time of termination they were getting Rs. 3,640.00 as monthly salary. II Party has not granted any terminal benefits to him nor any notice of termination. They raised a dispute before the ALC(C), Bangalore against the II Party, but the latter did not take part in the conciliation, hence, this claim petition seeking an order directing the II Party to reinstate them into service and to grant terminal and other benefits to him as per law.

4. II Party No. 1 contested the dispute maintaining that the I Parties herein are not employees of the II Party No. 1 corporation; they are contract labourers working under the contractor II Party No. 2; the works of haulage and3070 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] housekeeping were given on contract to II Party No. 2 V K Enterprises; the II Party No. 2 has deployed their workforce / labourers for carrying out the works undertaken on contract basis; it is the contractor who allots and supervises the works and pay wages, maintains Attendance and Wage Register of its labourers and complies with all statutory requirements covering the labourers under the ESI and Provident Fund Benefits . II Party No. 1 makes payment to the II Party No. 2 against the bills submitted by it; II Party No. 1 closed the operation of its Whitefield Plant w.e.f. 17.08.2009 and shifted the entire activities to Devanagonthi, LPG Bottling Plant and accordingly, the activities of Bangalore Plant / Whitefield were closed thereon. In the dispute raised before the ALC(C), Bangalore, I Parties has clearly admitted to have been employed by II Party No. 2; they cannot make out any grievance about the termination or to seek any relief against II Party No. 1. Hence, the claim petition is sought to be rejected.

5. In addition to the query put in the schedule of reference, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial based on the rival pleadings raised by the respective parties:

6. Then the matter was posted for Evidence of I Party, Among the I Party workmen, Seven workmen have filed their respective affidavits in lieu of their examination in chief on 02.05.2017 and prayed for time to submit documents. On 27.09.2019 WW 3 was present and cross-examined by counsel for II Party. Thereafter, despite having afforded ample opportunities, WW 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 did not prefer either to produce documents or to mount the witness box offering themselves as a witness to prove the affidavit filed by them and to subject himself / herself for cross-examination. Accordingly, the affidavits tendered by them are discarded from record by my learned predecessor as per the proceeding dated 22.11.2019 and the case was posted for Evidence of the II Party.

7. Initially Mr. Bishnu Minz, Chief Manager (Plant) is examined from the II Party No. 1 in chief. Since the said witness could not tender himself for cross-examination, the Learned Counsel for II Party took leave of this court to get the evidence tendered by him in chief examination to be struck off from record and to examine Mr. Girish Shimmoga Varadaraju, Chief Manager (Plant) as a witness on its side and got him examined as MW 1. Despite repeated presence of MW 1 tendering himself for cross-examination, neither the I Party nor his counsel did turn up to cross-examine the witness. The individual notices issued to the I Party in person and to his counsel on board stood returned unserved with the postal endorsement "Insufficient address" and "No such Person in this Address" respectively. As it is genuinely found that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and by causing MW 1 to be present before this Tribunal anymore, this Tribunal is constrained to record cross-examination of MW 1 by the I Party as NIL and the case is posted for final argument.

8. The Argument advanced by the II Party No. 1 is heard in detail.

9. Issues No. 1 and 2: At the very threshold the learned counsel for II Party No. 1 urged by placing reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in V K Raj industries vs. Labour Court and others (FJR Vol 59 Allahabad 304) that as no evidence is produced by the I Party challenging the validity of his termination, he must fail in toto. In the ruling cited supra it is well settled that

10. The entire back history of the proceedings of the case is revealed in the afore discussed paragraphs. The failure / refusal of the I Party to tender himself / herself for cross-examination and also his failure to subject MW 1 for cross-examination has literally marked willful abandonment of the claim by the I Party or his absolute failure to put forth a valid and genuine case. The principle laid down in the ruling cited supra gives a complete answer to the query raised in the given case. Therefore, the only conclusion to be followed is that the I Party failed in proving a genuine cause or claim which leads to the total dismissal of the instant industrial dispute.

11. With this view, these issues are answered against the claimant I Parties. Hence, the following award.

Reference is dismissed. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 27th February 2026)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3071

का.आ. 623.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय

[सं. एल - 12012/369/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 623.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.220/2002) 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-12012/369/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Sri A. Raju, S/o Laxmaiah, H.No.9-1-80, Kalidaspura, Langer House, Hyderabad – 500 001.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, (Personnel & HRD Deptt.) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti Hyderabad – 500 095.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner  :     Sri   Macherla Rangaiah,  Advocate
For the Respondent  :     Sri   Y. Ranjeeth Reddy,  Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/369/2001-IR(B.I) dated 6.3.2002 which3072 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication, requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri A. Raju, Temporary/Non-Messenger, w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 220/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Petitioner has filed his claim statement and as per his claim he has worked continuously in the Respondent organization during the period from 1989 to 1997 but, his services has been terminated without any reasonable ground or following any principle and in violation of provision of ID Act and prayed to reinstate him with all benefits from the date of his actual termination.

3. Respondent has filed the counter wherein he has denied the allegations made in claim statement by the petitioner and contended that Petitioner had not worked for 240 days in 12 months of any calendar year just preceding from date of termination. Therefore, the provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947 is not applicable to the Petitioner case and his claim statement is liable to be dismissed.

4. Perused the record. As per provision contained u/s.25F of the Act, the workman has to put in 240 days continuous service just preceding from the date of his termination in a 12 month of a calendar year. But, despite sufficient opportunity petitioner failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his claim of 240 days of the service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, 'No Claim' award is passed. Transmit.

Award is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 10 th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

[सं. एल-12012/6/2022-आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3073

S.O. 624.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 248/2022) 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-12012/6/2022- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri T. Manoharan, S/o Changal Rayalu, B.L. Kadiga Reginamam Panthu(P.O.), Bangarupalayam(M), Chittor District.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office Region II, Tirupathi-517501.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent : Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/6/2022-IR(B.I) dated 30.4.2002, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri T. Manoharan, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 248/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. The perusal of the claim statement filed by the Petitioner as well as the counter of the Respondent goes to reveal that this matter pertains to the termination of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent. The Appropriate government has not referred any industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in respect of termination of Petitioner.

Section 10 (4) provides:-

3074 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, in view of the above provision the Industrial Tribunal cannot decide a dispute not explicitly referred to it by the appropriate Government as it's jurisdiction under Section 10 (4) of ID Act, 1947 is confined to the specific point of dispute mentioned in the reference order and matter incidental there to. If the reference is for dismissal but the matter pertains to the termination, the Tribunal must strictly stick to the referred terms.

3. Therefore, in view of the provision contained under Section 10(4) of the I.D.Act, 1947, there is no reference of the industrial dispute regarding termination of the Petitioner for adjudication before this Tribunal. The reference of dispute herein pertain to the dismissal of the Petitioner from service. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot adjudicate the dispute in the absence of reference of termination by retrenchment of Petitioner.

4. Even otherwise, Petitioner workman has failed to substantiate his claim of 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination by any evidence in terms of mandate of Sec.25F of I.D.Act, 1947. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that he has been terminated illegally is not tenable and he is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the claim statement. Thus, 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 25th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

[सं. एल - 12012/108/2000- आई आर (बी.I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3075

S.O. 625.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 155/2002) 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-12012/108/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri R. Srinivasa Rao, C/o Ch. Ranga Rao, State Bank of India Main Branch, Gudivada -521301. Krishna Distt.

…Petitioner

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region II, Vijayawada -520 001.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/108/2000-IR(B.I) dated 31.8.2000 which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication, to Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad for adjudication and later the same has been transferred to this Tribunal bearing ID No. 101/2000, 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:

3076 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri R. Srinivasa Rao, Ex-Messenger, w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 155/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 626—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं273/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/35/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3077

S.O. 626.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 273/2002) 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-12012/35/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri Y. Mani, D.No. 22-1309, Vengal Rao colony, C.M.T. Road, Chittor District.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office Region II, Tirupathi-517501.

..Respondent

For the Petitioner :         Sri   Macherla Rangaiah,  Advocate
For the Respondent :        Sri   Y. Ranjeeth Reddy,  Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/35/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.6.2002, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri Y. Mani, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 273/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3078 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 25th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 627.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं215/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/396/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3079

S.O. 627.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 215/2002) 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-12012/396/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Sri A. Menaiah, S/o A. Chengaiah, Thimmogialli(V), Kanduvaripalli(P.O.) Bangarupalayam(M) Chittoor Dist.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Vijayawada -520 003.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner  :        Sri   Macherla Rangaiah,  Advocate
For the Respondent  :        Sri  K. Rathanga Pani Reddy,  Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/396/2001-IR(B.I) dated 13.2.2002, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri A. Menaiah, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 215/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 628.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं216/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/397/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3081

[No. L-12012/397/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Between:

Sri G. Chandraiah,

S/o D. Gopalaiah,

Andareddy Palli Colony,

Venkategiri (P.O.)

Bangarupalayam (M)

Chittor District.

… Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office

Tirupathi-517501. ….. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/397/2001-IR(B.I) dated 13.2.2002, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri G. Chandraiah, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?" After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 216/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3082 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 629.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं239/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/442/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

[No. L-12012/442/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3083

Between:

Sri M. Chiranjeevi,

Kakumanu(M),

Garikapadu(P.O.),

Guntur Dist. … Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Region II,

Labbipet,

Vijayawada -520 001. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri T. Koteswara Rao, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/442/2001-IR(B.I) dated 4.4.2002, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri M. Chiranjeevi, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 239/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 25th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer3084 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 630.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं94/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/94/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

[No. L-12012/94/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Between:

Sri K. Suryanarayana,

S/o Chinna Basappa,

R/o. LIG 505, A.P. Housing Board

Colony, Anantapur Dist. A.P … Petitioner

And

The Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road, Tirupathi, A.P …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3085

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/94/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.07.2000 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.91/2000, 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:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Anantapur Main Branch in terminating Sri K. Suryanarayana, Messanger, from the service of the Bank by way of oral Orders w.e.f. 31-03-1997 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 94/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,3086 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1988 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 12 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3087 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.

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.

3088 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3089 constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

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 of3090 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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."

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 W6. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the notification Ex. W2 is the interview call letter Ex. W3 is the service certificate Ex.W4 to Ex. W6 are the service certificates.

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:-

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Anantapur main branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri K. Suryanarayana 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?

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3091

Findings:-

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.

3092 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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."

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3093 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.

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:-

3094 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

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.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

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 temporary3096 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation's affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3097

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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.

3098 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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:-

46. In view of principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3099 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,

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:-

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 mentioned3100 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri K. Suryanarayna, 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 Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on this the 24th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri K. Suryanarayana MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah

Ex.W1: Photocopy of the notification

Ex.W2: Photocopy of the initerview call letter

Ex. W3: Photocopy of the service certificate

Ex. W4: Photocopy of the service certificate

EX. W5: Photocopy of the service certificate

EX. W6: Photocopy of the service certificate

Ex.M1: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.17.11.87[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3101 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

का.आ. 631.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार cSad vkWQ cMksnk के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं4/2025) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- आई आर (बी- II)-32]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-32]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Presiding Officer

Between:

Shri Holiga Ananthakumar,

16-113-A1 Uma Nagar Old Town Anantapur,

Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh-515001

9701970135

..….Petitioner

AND

1. The Chief General Managger3102 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 7/2/2025-B1 dated 20.01.2025 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen. The reference is,

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Shri Holiga Ananthkumar, Ex-Peon is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?''

he reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 4/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent. Respondent present. Despite sufficient opportunity and service of notice petitioner didn't file any claim statement. It seems petitioner do not want to prosecute his case. Hence a ' no- claim' award is paaseed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the ³rd day of February, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 632.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं34/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/401/2000-आई आर (बी- I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

[No. L-12012/401/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3103

Between:

Smt. B. Suseelamma,

H.No. 8/625-7, Prakash Nagar,

Yerramukkapalli,

Dist. Cuddapah (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 Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/401/2000-IR(B.I) dated 8.06.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Cuddapah Main Branch in terminating the services of Smt. B. Suseelamma, Sweeper, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 34/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor 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:-

3104 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1988 to March, 1997 , and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of 9 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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 up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3105 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.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide3106 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3107

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.

16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a3108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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."

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 W5. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of her claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the Caste certificate of the Petitioner. Further Ex.W2 is the School certificate. Ex.W3 is the service certificate. Ex.W4 is the interview call letter dated 7.08.1992 issued by the Respondent. Ex.W5 is Service certificate dated 22.08.1997 issued by the Respondent.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3109 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.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Cuddapah main branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri B. Suseelamma a Sweeper 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:-

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 panels3110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3111

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

3112 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:-

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3113 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.

In this context, WW1 in her cross examination has stated that,

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, the3114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3115

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.19963116 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3117 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:-

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:-

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,

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:-

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case3118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of Workman.

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Smt. B. Suseelamma Ex. Messenger / Sweeper 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 24th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3119

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Smt. B. Suseelamma MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Caste Certificate of the Petitioner

Ex.W2: Photocopy of School Certificate

Ex.W3: Photocopy of letter dated 07.08.1992 calling the Petitioner for interview.

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service certificate dated 7.08.1992 issued by the

Respondent

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 22.08.1997 issued by 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.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

का.आ. 633.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं31/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/328/2001- आई आर (बी- I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

[No. L-12012/328/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director3120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Between:

Smt. Chandrakala,

W/o yadagiri,

R/o 14-7-467, Isamia Bazar,

Hyderabad. ……Petitioner/Union

AND

The Asst. General manager,

(Personnel & HRD deptt.),

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Hyderabad 500 095 … Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-12012/328/2001- IR(B.I) dated 19.12.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workman. The reference is,

"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Smt. Chandrakala, Temporary/Non-Messenger, SBI with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 31/2002 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner has filed his claim statement and as per her claim she has worked for more than 240 days in the Respondent organization during the period from 1989 to 1997 but, her services has been terminated without any reasonable ground or following any principle and in violation of provision of ID Act of law and prayed to reinstate her with all benefits from the date of her actual termination.

4. Perused the record. As per provision contained u/s.25F of the Act, the workman has to put in 240 days continuous service just preceding from the date of his termination in a 12 month of a calendar year. But, despite sufficient opportunity petitioner failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of her claim of 240 days of the service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, 'No Claim' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 25 th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3121

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 634.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं170/2025) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2026- आई आर (बी-I)-32]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-32]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri Kondeti Chandra Sekhar

45-32-2/1, Sangam Office,

Akkayyapalem

Akkayyapalem Main Road,

Visakhapatnam

Andhra Pradesh-530016 ..….Petitioner

AND

The Director

M/s Karni Safe Security Service (ops) pvt ltd3122 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Plot No 40, Sukhija Vihar, Near Teoulour unbound school

Maharana Pratap Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302012

The Chief Manager

State Bank of India, RBO-I

Administrative Office Building, 3rd floor

Visakhapatnam-530017

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent(s): Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate of R2

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.7/17/2025-B1 dated 25-06-2025 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Karni Safe Security Service (opc) Pvt Ltd and their workmen. The reference is,

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 170/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Notice sent to petitioner returned with endorsement "no such person" hence returned to sender. Therefore, in the absence of a claim statement, a 'No-Claim' Award is passed. Transmit.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, Lower Division Clerk , corrected by me on this the 5 th day of February, 2026

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 635.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं43/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/446/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 635.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 43/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3123 Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/446/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri N. Madhusudhan ,

S/o N. Das. H.No. 12/10-586/1/6.

Indira Nagar.

Road No. 3 Warasiguda,

Secundrerabad – 500 361.

… Petitioner And

The Assistant General Manager,

(Personnel & HD Department)

State Bank of India ,

Local Head office,

Bank Street,

Koti, Hyderabad- 095

…..Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/446/2000-IR(B.I) dated 7.6.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office Hyderabad, in terminating the services of Sri N. Madhusudan, temporary/Non-Messenger, SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 43/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor 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 batch3124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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:-

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 19.5.1989 to 31.3.1997 and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 8 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.

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 up to 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3125 entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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.

3126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein 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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3127 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 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.

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 put3128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon.

17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3129

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex. W1 to W4. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under: -

Ex. W1 is the transfer certificate of the Petitioner Further Ex. W2 is the Certificate dated 16.09.1991 issued by the Respondent. Ex. W3 is the letter dated 8.07.1992 calling the Petitioner for interview. Ex. W4 to Ex.W7 are the Certificates dated 15.01.1997, 15.1.1997, 15.1.1997 and 7.4.1997 respectively issued by the Respondent.

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.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head Office Hyderabad in terminating the services of Workman Sri N. Madhusudan, 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:-

26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal3130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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:-

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.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3131

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

3132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3133

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

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.

3134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3135 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 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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 no3136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3137

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:-

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:-

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,

3138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:-

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman.

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh, and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come, he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents, Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover, the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such, but their services were not utilized after the cutoff 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3139

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri N. Madhusudhan Rao, 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 25th February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri N. Madhusudhan Rao MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Ex.W1: Photocopy of transfer certificate of the Petitioner

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Certificate dated 16.09.1991 issued by the Respondent

Ex.W3: Photocopy of letter dated 8.07.1992 calling the Petitioner for interview.

Ex.W4 Photocopies of Certificates dated 15.01.1997 and 7.4.1997 issued by to Ex.W7:

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.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

का.आ. 636.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं80/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/524/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक3140 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O. 636.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 80/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/524/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri S. Ramachandram,

S/o Odaiah,

(V&P) Rimmnaguda(M),

Gajwel,

Medak Distt.-312.

… Petitioner And

The Asstt. General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad-500095(A.P) ….. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/524/2000-IR(B.I) dated 14.06.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri S. Ramachandram, Temporary/Non-Messenger, SBI with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 80/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3141 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:-

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 Respondent Bank the workman joined in the services of the Management Institution as Non-Messenger on 1986 to 1997 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 11 years, and by dint of hard work till his services were terminated 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.

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 the3142 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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.

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.

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 to3144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3145 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.

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 rights3146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated.

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W16. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the Transfer Certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the Caste Certificate. Ex. W3 is the Service Certificate dated 25.03.1997. Ex. W4 is the Service Certificate dated 14.06.1988. Ex. W5 is the Service Certificate dated 19.07.1994. Ex. W6 is the call letter for interview. Ex. W7 is the Absorption letter. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate dated 03.02.1996. Ex. W9 is the Service Certificate dated 21.07.1994. Ex. W10 is the Service Certificate dated 2.08.1996. Ex. W11 is the Service Certificate dated 24.05.1997. Ex. W12 is the Service Certificate dated 24.05.1997. Ex. W13 is the Service Certificate dated 26.06.1995. Ex. W14 is the Service Certificate dated 31.08.1996. Ex. W15 is the Service Certificate dated 24.05.1997. Ex. W16 is the Service Certificate dated 01.04.1997.

21. On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. 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.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri S. Ramachandram 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:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3147

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.

3148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3149

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.

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:-

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 provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3151 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.

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.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it3152 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3153 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:-

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.

3154 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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:-

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3155 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:-

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,

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:-

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 be3156 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri S. Ramachandram 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 10th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri S. Ramachandram MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Transfer Certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Caste certificate

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 25.03.1997

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 14.06.1988

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 19.07.1994

Ex.W6: Photocopy of Call letter for interview

Ex.W7: Photocopy of Absorption letter

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 03.02.1996

Ex.W9: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 21.07.1994

Ex.W10: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 2.08.1996

Ex.W11: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 24.05.1997[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3157 Ex.W12: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 24.05.1997

Ex.W13: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 26.06.1995

Ex.W14: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 31.08.1996

Ex.W15: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 24.05.1997

Ex.W16: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 01.04.1997

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.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

का.आ. 637.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं50/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/383/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 637.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 50/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/383/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

3158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:

Sri M. Ramesh Kumar,,

S/o Late M. Komaraiah,

R/o H. No. 8-2-134/21,

Prathapnagar, Panjagutta,

Hyderabad.

… Petitioner And

The Assistant General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

State Bank of India,

Local Head office,

Bank SP Street,

Loti, Hyderabad- 095

…..Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/383/2000-IR(B.I) dated 26.6.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office Hyderabad, in terminating the services of Sri M. Ramesh Kumar Temporary/ Non-Messenger, SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 50/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon'ble High Court vide its' judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon'ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon'ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below: -

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3159

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.

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1985 to 1983 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.

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 up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex3160 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3161 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.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein 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.

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 all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination3162 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3163 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."

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex. W1 to W12. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under: -

Ex.W1is the service certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the notification. Ex.W3 is the interview call letter. Ex.W4 is the appointment as well as empanelment letter. Ex.W5 to Ex.W10 are the service certificates. Ex.W11 is the notification in the year 1999. Ex.W12 is the audit report.

3164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head Office Hyderabad in terminating the services of Workman Sri M. Ramesh Kumar, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3165 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.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

3166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3167

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:-

3168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3169 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.

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 of3170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3171

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 temporary3172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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:-

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:-

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,

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3173

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:-

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman.

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh, and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come, he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents, Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover, the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such, but their services were not utilized after the cutoff 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.

3174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri V. Venugopal, 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 26th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri V. Venugopal MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Ex.W1: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of notification

Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W4: Photocopy of appointment as well as empanelment letter

Ex.W5 to

Ex.W10:Photocopies of service certificates

Ex.W11:Photocopy of notification issued by Respondent in the year 1999

Ex.W12:Photocopy of audit report.

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.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

का.आ. 638.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3175

[सं. एल-12012/382/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 638.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 49/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/382/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Between:

Sri V. Venugopal,,

S/o. V. Ganesh Rao,

R/o. 12-01-1049,

Old Mallepally,

Hyderabad. 500001

… Petitioner And

The Assistant General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

State Bank of India,

Local Head office,

Bank SP Street,

Loti, Hyderabad- 095

…..Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/382/2000-IR(B.I) dated 26.6.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office Hyderabad, in terminating the services of Sri V. Venugopal Temporary/ Non-Messenger,SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 49/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 favor 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:-

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 1989 to 1987 and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 8 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3177

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 up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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 affidavit3178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein 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—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3179 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 all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,3180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [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.

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—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3181 have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated.

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 W7. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under: -

Ex.W1 Appointment order. Further Ex.W2 is the Reference Order. Ex.W3 is the Government Instructions. Ex.W4 and Ex.W5 are service certificates. Ex.W6 is the circular dt.8.4.1999 and Ex.W7 is the another circular dt.14.7.1999.

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.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head Office Hyderabad in terminating the services of Workman Sri N. Madhusudhan, 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:-

3182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3183

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:-

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

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 on3184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

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:-

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—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3185

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

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 advised3186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation's affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3187 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.

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

3188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3189

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.

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:-

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:-

3190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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,

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:-

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman.

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh, and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come, he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents, Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover, the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such, but their services were not utilized after the cutoff 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3191 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.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri V. Venugopal 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 25th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri V. Venugopal MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Appointment Order

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Reference Order

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Government Instructions

Ex.W4 &: Photocopy of service certificates

Ex.W5

Ex.W6: Photocopy of circular dt.8.4.1999

Ex.W7: Photocopy of another circular dt.14.7.1999.

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.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 panel3192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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

का.आ. 639.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं85/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/529/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 639.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.85/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/529/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri P. Vinod,

S/o P. Venkata Narasimha,

Keep Blocks,

New Bhoiguda,

Secunderabad-500003.

… Petitioner And

The Assistant General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad. ….. Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/529/2000-IR(B.I) dated 13.06.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3193

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad, in terminating the services of Sri P. Vinod Temporary/ Non-Messenger, SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief applicant is entitled ?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 85/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor 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:-

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 Respondent Bank the workman joined in the Respondent Bank at Tirumalagerry branch, Hyderabad as a Messenger on 15.01.1987 and worked upto 12.03.1990. He submits that his last drawn salary was Rs. 2,900/- approximately. 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-3194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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 up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3195 absorb them in service.

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.

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 regularized3196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [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.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3197 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.

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 the3198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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."

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 W8. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the Marks memo. Further Ex.W2 is the Transfer certificate. Ex.W3 is the Caste certificate. Ex. W4 is the employment card Ex. W5 is the Service Certificate dated 1.08.1987. Ex. W6 is the Application form. Ex. W7 is the Interview call letter. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate dated 22.03.1990.

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.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri. P. Vinod, 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3199

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.

3200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3201

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:-

3202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 provisions contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3203 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.

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.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it3204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3205 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:-

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.

3206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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:-

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:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3207

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

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,

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:-

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 petitioner3208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri. P. Vinod, 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 10th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri P. Vinod MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Marks memo

Ex.W2: Photocopy of transfer certificate

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Caste Certificate

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Employment card

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 1.08.1987

Ex.W6: Photocopy of Application form

Ex.W7: Photocopy of Interview call letter

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 22.03.1990

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3209 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.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

का.आ. 640.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं105/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/460/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 640.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 105/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/460/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri B. Sivanarayana,

Esmail street,

Aravapallinadalur-516 105.

Cuddapah Distt.

… Petitioner And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,3210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupathi-517 501. ….. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/460/2000-IR(B.I) dated 27.6.2001/23.07.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Is the State Bank of India, Nandalur Branch justified in terminating Sri B. Sivanarayana, 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. 105/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon'ble High Court vide its' judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon'ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon'ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3211

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 Respondent Bank the workman joined in the services of the Management Institution as Sweeper-Cum-water woman on 1989 to 1997 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 9 years, and by dint of hard work till his services were terminated 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.

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 up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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 High3212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3213 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.

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.

3214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3215 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."

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 W2. 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 Service Certificate dated 15.05.1997.

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.

23. Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

24. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I. Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated3216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri B. Sivanarayana 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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3217 contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

3218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3219

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:-

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 provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

3220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3221 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.

3222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3223 post merely on the basis of number of working days.

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.

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:-

3224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:-

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,

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:-

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3225 was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri B. Sivanarayana, 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 9th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri B. Sivanarayana MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 15.05.1997.

3226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.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

का.आ. 641.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं94/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/380/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 94/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/380/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri. C. Magharaj,

S/o Ramaswamy,

H.No. 12-1-1006,

Old Mallepally,

Kummariwadi,

Hyderabad.

… Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3227 And

The Assistant General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad. …Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/380/2000-IR(B.I) dated 17.07.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad, in terminating the services of Sri C. Megharaj, Temporary/ Non-Messenger, SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled ?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 94/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor 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:-

3228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 Respondent Bank the workman joined in the Respondent Bank the workman joined in the services of the Management Institution as Messenger on 1986 to 1997 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years, by dint of hard work till his services were terminated 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.

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 up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3229 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.

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.

3230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3231 Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

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 never3232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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."

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W12. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the Notification. Further Ex.W2 is the Service Certificate dated 20.09.1986. Ex.W3 is the Service Certificate dated 21.05.1988. Ex. W4 is the Absorption letter. Ex. W5 is the Service Certificate dated 10.05.1991. Ex. W6 is the Service Certificate dated 05.031992. Ex. W7 is the Service Certificate dated 31.3.1993. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate dated 4.5.1994. Ex. W9 is the Service Certificate dated 03.06.1995. Ex. W10 is the Service Certificate dated 09.02.1998. Ex. W11 is notification to Employment exchange by Respondent.

21. On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Aluru Rama Rao and this witness has exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non- Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3233

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri. C. Megharaj 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.

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 the3234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3235

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

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 by3236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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:-

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 provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3237

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.

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 management3238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3239

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at3240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days.

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.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3241

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:-

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,

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:-

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 employees3242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri. C. Megharaj, 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 9th day of March, 2026..

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri C. Megharaj MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3243

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Notification

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 20.09.1986

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 21.05.1988

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Absorption letter

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 10.05.1991

Ex.W6: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 05.03.1992

Ex.W7: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 24.10.1994

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Ex.W9: Photocopy of letter from Hal campus branch

Ex.W10: Photocopy of Notice from the ALC(C)

Ex.W11: Photocopy of Letter to Employment exchange by Respondent

Ex.W12: Photocopy of audit report dt. 14.7.99

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.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 10.8.983244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

का.आ. 642.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं98/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/452/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.98/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/452/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of March, 2026 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 98/2001

Sri. P. Subba Raju, S/o P. Satyanarayanaraju, Ilparru Penugonda(M), West Godhavari-500 001.

…Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager, (Personnel & HRD Deptt.) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank street Koti, Hyderabad.

… Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/452/2000-IR(B.I) dated 20.07.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3245

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad, in terminating the services of Sri P. Subba Raju Temporary/ Non-Messenger, SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled ?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 98/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor 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.

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 Respondent Bank the workman joined in the Respondent Bank at ECIL Branch Hyderabad on 4.08.1986 and worked upto 3.11.1986 for 87 days as a Messenger on daily wages basis. Thereafter he worked as a Messenger for another 87 days during 18.05.1990 to 13.08.1990 at Patamata branch at Vijayawada as a Messenger. It is submitted that there was plenty of work in the hands of the Respondent. The officers of the Respondent bank have created artificial breaks in my matter with a malafide intention to deprive the3246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] benefits such as regularization and included of my name in the panel. It is submitted that the officers have resorted to most unfair methods in providing the work to the genuine persons who are available at the work sport. They have picked up the persons of their choice without following any norms or yard stick. He is a victim of such unequal treatment of the officers of the Respondent bank. 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.

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 up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3247 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.

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.

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 Management3248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3249 arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

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 for3250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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."

Ex.W1 is the Transfer certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the Service Certificate dated 16.08.1988. Ex.W3 is the call letter dated 28.06.1989. Ex. W4 is the Service Certificate dated 17.08.1990. Ex. W5 is the Notice. W6 is the Failure Report.

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.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri. P. Subba Raju, 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?

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3251

Findings:-

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

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.

3252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3253 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.

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:-

3254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 provisions contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3255

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.

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 procedure3256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3257

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the3258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days.

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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3259 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:-

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:-

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,

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:-

3260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman.

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri. P. Subba Raju 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3261

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri P. Subba Raju MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Transfer certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 16.08.1988

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Service Certificate 28.06.1989

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 17.04.1986

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Notice

Ex.W6: Photocopy of Failure Report

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.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

का.आ. 643.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं96/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/445/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 643.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 96/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/445/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director3262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri. B.R. Saibaba,

S/o Ramaswamy,

New Block No.61, Sadan Bazar,

Bollarum,

Secunderabad-500003.

… Petitioner And

The Assistant General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank street, Koti,

Hyderabad. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/445/2000-IR(B.I) dated 20.07.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri B.R. Saibaba, Temporary/ Non-Messenger, SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled ?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 96/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favor of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon'ble High Court vide its' judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon'ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon'ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3263

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 Respondent at ECIL branch, Hyderabad on 21.11.1985 and worked for 83 days in the first spell.

The Respondent has called him for an interview taking into account his 83 days of service at ECIL branch, Hyderabad. The Petitioner has appeared for the interview on 6.07.1989 and he was selected. His name was included in the panel of workers. It is submitted that he was provided with work after selection, from 2.07.1991 to 7.1.1992 for 190 days as a Messenger at ECIL branch, Hyderabad. Similiarly he was provided with work for 33 days during March, 1993 to July, 1993 at the same branch in the same capacity. The Petitioner was also provided with work during February 1993 to January, 1994 for another 149 days at the same branch. The Petitioner was also provided with work as a Messenger at the same branch for another 199 days during January, 1994 to December, 1994. It is submitted that the officers of the Respondent have extracted the work from the Petitioner from 1995 onwards also but they recorded the names of other bogus workers in his place, however paid the wages to him. It is submitted that the officers of the Respondent Bank have resorted to this unfair method with a malafide intention to deny the protection to him under the Labour laws. The Petitioner has worked till 31.03.1997. His last drawn salary was Rs. 3,000/-. 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.

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 be3264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] valid up to December 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there are 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3265

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.

3266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3267 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.

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."

3268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 Caste Certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the Marks Memo . Ex.W3 is the Employment Card. Ex. W4 is the Transfer Certificate. Ex. W5 is the Service Certificate dated 24.08.1985. Ex. W6 is the Service Certificate dated 05.07.1989. Ex. W7 is the Service Certificate dated 08.01.1992. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate dated 08.07.1993. Ex. W9 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W10 is the Service Certificate.

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.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head office Hyderabad branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri. B.R. Saibaba 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:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3269

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.

3270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3271

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:-

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 provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3273 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.

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.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided3274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation's affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3275

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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.

3276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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:-

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3277

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,

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:-

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 for3278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri. B.R. Saibaba 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 9th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri B.R. Saibaba MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Ex.W1: Photocopy of caste certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Marks Memo

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Employment card

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Transfer Certificate

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 24.08.1985

Ex.W6: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 05.07.1989

Ex.W7: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 08.01.1992

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 08.07.1993

Ex.W9: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Ex.W10: Photocopy of Service Certificate

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3279 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.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

का.आ. 644.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं108/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/463/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 644.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.108/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/463/2001- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri Kothakota Nagaraja,

Kummarapalli(V),

Garancheruvu,

Peddapalli (P),

Rayachoti,

Distt. Cuddapah-516001.

… Petitioner And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupathi-517501.

…Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate3280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/463/2001-IR(B.I) dated 20.07.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

"Is the State Bank of India, Rajampet Main Branch justified in terminating Sri Kothakota Nagaraja, Messenger, from the services of the Bank? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 108/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

" 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3281

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the he joined the service of the Respondent Bank at Rajampet the workman joined in the services of the Management Institution as Messenger on 1990 to 1997 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 years, and by dint of hard work will till hiss services were terminated 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.

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 who3282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.

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.

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3283 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.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to3284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3285 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."

Ex.W1 is the Service Certificate dated 09.09.1991. Further Ex.W2 is the Application form. Ex.W3 is the Service Certificate dated 19.08.1992. Ex.W4 is the call letter for interview. Ex.W5 is the Panel list. Ex.W6 is the Caste Certificate. Ex. W7 is the Marks Memo. Ex. W8 is the Transfer Certificate.

21. Though Respondent has filed counter, but the contention made in the counter is not substantiated by any evidence by the Respondent Management.

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 :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Workman Sri Kothakota Nagaraja, 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:-

3286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3287

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

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 position3288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3289

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 provision contained Under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

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 of3290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

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.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3291 candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies.

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after3292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3293 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.

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.

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

3294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:-

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,

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:-

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. Thus, in view of fore gone discussion and laws laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the claim of workman of regularization in the employment of Respondent is not substantiated by the evidence of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3295 Petitioner, WW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he is not aware of any settlements and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than him was given appointment in the bank and he has no document to show that any of his juniors is continuing in service of the bank as of now. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for regularization in the employment of Respondent bank is not tenable. Further, Petitioner failed to produce any document in evidence to establish that any temporary employee junior to him is working in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled for regularization in the service of the Respondent.

This point is answered against the Petitioner Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

This Point is answered accordingly.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri Kothakota Nagaraja, 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 9th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri Kothakota Nagaraja NIL

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 09.09.1991 Ex.W2: Photocopy of Application form Ex.W3: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 19.08.1992 Ex.W4: Photocopy of Call letter for interview Ex.W5: Photocopy of Panel list Ex.W6: Photocopy of Caste Certificate Ex.W7: Photocopy of Marks memo Ex.W8: Photocopy of Transfer Certificate

NIL

का.आ. 645.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं141/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/376/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक3296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O. 645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.141/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/376/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri P. Kameswara Rao, S/o P. Koteswara Rao( Late) Srinivasa Centre, D.No.7/87, Gudivada. Krishna Dist.-521301.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region II, Labbipet, Vijayawada -520 001.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/376/2000-IR(B.I) dated 9.5.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri P. Kameswara Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 140/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3297

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 646.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं153/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/424/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.153/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/424/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director3298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri K. Raghupathi, S/o Muthaiah, Mogili Venkategiri (P.O.) Bangarupalayam (M) Chittor District.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office RG-II, Tirupathi-517501.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/424/2000-IR(B.I) dated 22.5.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri K. Raghupathi, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 153/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3. Therefore, in view of the provision contained under Section 10(4) of the I.D.Act, 1947, there is no reference of the industrial dispute regarding termination of the Petitioner for adjudication before this Tribunal. The reference of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3299 dispute herein pertain to the dismissal of the Petitioner from service. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot adjudicate the dispute in the absence of reference of termination by retrenchment of Petitioner. Thus, 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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

का.आ. 647.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं155/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/427/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.155/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/427/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri P. Gangaiah, Maddelavaripalli, Vootupalli( P.O.) Kalikiri - 517234 Chittor District.

… Petitioner3300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office Region II, Tirupathi-517501.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/427/2000-IR(B.I) dated 22.5.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri P. Gangaiah, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 155/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3301

का.आ. 648.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं154/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/426/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.154/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/426/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri Kuppaiah, S/o Chinnabba, Periyambadi (V & P.O.) Via Iruvaram, Yadamari (M) Chittor District-517001.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office Region II, Tirupathi-517501.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/426/2000-IR(B.I) dated 22.5.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

3302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri Kuppaiah, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 154/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3303

का.आ. 649.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं234/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/137/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.234/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/137/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri Ponnu Rangam, S/o Chellaiah, Balajapalayam Road,Nr. Station, Varadaiahpalayam (P.O. & M) Chittor District.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office Region III, Tirupathi-517501.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner   :       Sri  Macherla Rangaiah,  Advocate
For the Respondent:          Sri  Y. Ranjeeth Reddy,  Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/137/2001-IR(B.I) dated 3.10.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

3304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri Ponnu Rangam, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 234/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3305

का.आ. 650.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं247/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/175/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 247/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/175/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri N.C.M. Kondaiah, S/o okkaiah, Gopavarapu Plli, P.C. Palli (M & P.O.) Kanigiri, Prakasam District.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office Region III, Tirupathi-517501. ….. Respondent

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/175/2001-IR(B.I) dated 16.10.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

3306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri N.C.M. Kondaiah, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 247/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR,Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3307

का.आ. 651.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं233/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/136/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.233/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/136/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Sri T. Anjaneyulu, Konidena (P.O.), Ballikurva(M), Prakasam District-523301.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office Region III, Tirupathi-517501.

…Respondent

For the Petitioner   :       Sri  Macherla Rangaiah,  Advocate
For the Respondent:          Sri   Y. Ranjeeth Reddy,  Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/136/2001-IR(B.I) dated 3.10.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

3308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri T. Anjaneyulu Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 233/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3309

का.आ. 652.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं230/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/135/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 230/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/135/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri D. Krishna Murthy,

S/o D. Ponnaiah, Vadamala(V),

Vadamalapet (P.O. & M),

Chittor District-517551.

… Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office Region III,

Tirupathi-517501. ….. Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/135/2001-IR(B.I) dated 18.9.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri D. Krishna Murthy Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?" After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 230/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 653.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं232/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/98/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 232/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/98/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3311

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri A. Raja Rao

S/o Late A. Guruvaiah,

R/o 12th ward, Near Kayaka Rice Mill,

Pedana (P.O. & V)

Krishna Dist. … Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Region II,

Labbipet,

Vijayawada -520 001. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/98/2001-IR(B.I) dated 7/26.9.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri A. Raja Rao Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 232/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

[सं. एल - 12012/132/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 227/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/132/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri D. John Jai Singh,

S/o Devanbu,

Ponnuru (V & P.O.), Vijayapuram (M),

Nagari, Chittor District.

… Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3313 State Bank of India,

Zonal Office Region III,

Tirupathi-517501. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/132/2001-IR(B.I) dated 18.9.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri D. John Jai Singh, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?" After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 227/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL3314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

का.आ. 655.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं234/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/130/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 234/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/130/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri A.C. Sudha,

14-834,

Vimal Studio, RTC Depot Road,

Chittor District-517001.

… Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office Region III,

Tirupathi-517501. ….. Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/130/2001-IR(B.I) dated 18.9.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri A.C. Sudha, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 225/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3315

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 656.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं207/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/46/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 207/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/46/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director3316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri M. Krishnaiah

S/o Peddanna (Aliyas chengaiah),

Nampalli(P.O. & V), Irala (M),

Prakasam District.

… Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office Region II,

Tirupathi-517501. ….. Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/46/2001-IR(B.I) dated 7.9.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri M. Krishnaiah Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?" After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 207/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3317

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 657.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं204/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/42/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

S.O. 657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 204/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/42/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri G. Srinivasulu

S/o Veerabhadram,

Pathakunchipudipalli,

Nr. Govt. Hospital, 5th ward,

Kanigiri, Prakasam District-523230

… Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office Region II,

Tirupathi-517501. ….. Respondent Appearances:

3318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/42/2001-IR(B.I) dated 6.9.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri G. Srinivasulu Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?" After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 204/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

NIL

का.आ. 658.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं205/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/43/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948 3319

S.O. 658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.205/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/43/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR,L Presiding Officer

Between:

Sri Sk.Md. Rasool

S/o Md. Khasim,

C/o Sk. Jeelani,

Water Mechanic, Chimakurthi,

Navabpeta, Maseed Centre,

Prakasam District.

… Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office Region II,

Tirupathi-517501. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/43/2001-IR(B.I) dated 6.9.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri Sk.Md. Rasool Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?" After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 205/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

3320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

NIL

जिला : कछार राज्य : असम

गाँव//मौज़ा

NIL

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.