2467 GI/2026
(3003)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजिक
WEEKLY
सं. 14]
नई दिल् ली, अप्रैल 12—अप्रैल 18, 2026, िजनवार/चैत्र 22—चैत्र 28, 1948
No. 14]
NEW DELHI, APRIL 12— APRIL 18, 2026, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 22––CHAITRA 28, 1948
इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्रालय
(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)
(जिन्िी-2)
नई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 597.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10
के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड के अिीन जनम्नजलजखत
कायाडलयों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाररयों एवं कमडचाररयों ने जिन्िी का कायडसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को
अजिसूजचत करती िै।
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-30042026-272172
CG-DL-W-30042026-272172
3004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
क्रम सं.
कायाडलय का नाम
1.
आयुक्त (अपील) का कायाडलय, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर,गोवा
2.
लेखापरीक्षा मिाजनिेिालय, दिल्ली क्षेत्रीय इकाई, नई दिल्ली
3.
प्रिान आयुक्त का कायाडलय, केन्रीय माल एवं सेवा कर, वडोिरा-I
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जिन्िी-2-अजिसूचना]
रािेि रंिन, सिायक जनिेिक (रा.भा.)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(Hindi-2)
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.
S.
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)
पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 10 माचड, 2026
का.आ. 598.—भारत सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिडन)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) जिसे इसमे इसके पश्चात उक्त अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) के
अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2969(अ) तारीख
24.07.2024 िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र तारीख 25.07.2024 मे प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से
संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िडष्ट भूजम में मैससड इंरिनुष गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा असम राज्य में जसलचर सीिीडी स्ट्पर लाइन
ऑफ गुवािाटी-जिलांग-जसलचर-पानीसागर प्रकृजतक गैस पाइपलाइन के मिायम से प्रकृजतक गैस के पररविन के जलए
पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिडन करने के अपने आिय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त रािपजत्रत अजिसूचना की प्रजतयााँ िनता को उपलब्ि करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने िनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों को परीक्षण के उपरांत जनपटान कर दिया िै;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उप - िारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अपनी
ररपोटड िे िी िै;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3005
और भारत सरकार ने, उक्त ररपोटड पर जवचार करने के पश्चात और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने पर दक उक्त भूजम
पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिडन करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िै;
अतः अब, भारत सरकार, उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुये,
यि घोषणा करती िै दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िडष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए उपयोग के
अजिकार का अिडन दकया िाता िै;
और भारत सरकार, उक्त अजिजनयम दक िारा 6 दक उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुये, यि
जनिेि िेती िै दक पाइपलाइने जबछाने के जलए भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख को, भारत
सरकार में जनजित िोने के बिाय, पाइपलाइन जबछाने का प्रस्ट्ताव करने वाली मैससड इंरिनुष गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित
िोगा और तिुपरर, भूजम में ऐसे उपयोग का अजिकार, इस प्रकार अजिरोजपत जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुये, सभी
जवलंगमों से मुक्त, मैससड इंरिनुष गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : कछार
राज्य : असम
सकडल
तिसील
गााँव//मौज़ा
िाग नं.
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगड
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
कोरटगोराि
कोरटगोराि
भांगरपार पाटड-III
46
00
02
00
कोरटगोराि
कोरटगोराि
चंिपुर पाटड-III
28
00
00
50
(फा. सं. एल-14014/249/2022 - िी पी-II (ई-45396 )
रामिी लाल मीना, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2026
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 vesting
3006
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.
SCHEDULE
District:- Cachar
State :- Assam
Circle
Tahsil
Name of the
Village/ Mouza
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mt
r.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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.
रेल मंत्रालय
(रेलवे बोडड)
नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 599.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडड), रािभाषा जनयम, 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के
जनयम-10 के उपजनयम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में जनम्नजलजखत कायाडलयों ििााँ 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाररयों/
कमडचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायडसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िै:-
1. मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंिक का कायाडलय, केंरीय कारखाना, मैसूरु िजक्षण, िजक्षण पजश्चम रेलवे, हुब्बजल्ल
2. स्ट्टेिन प्रबंिक का कायाडलय, रेलवे स्ट्टेिन, जसलीगुड़ी, पूवोत्तर सीमा रेलवे, गुवािाटी
3. रेलवे भती बोडड कायाडलय, जबलासपुर
4. इरकॉन इंटरनेिनल जलजमटेड, छत्तीसगढ़ रेल पररयोिना कायाडलय, जबलासपुर
[फा. सं. हिंिी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2304430)]
डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, जनिेिक, रािभाषा
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(Railway Board)
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2025
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:-
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
[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(2304430)]
Dr. V. SUGUNA, Director, O.L.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3007
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 600.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडड), रािभाषा जनयम, 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के
जनयम-10 के उपजनयम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में जनम्नजलजखत कायाडलयों ििााँ 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाररयों/
कमडचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायडसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िै:-
1. बेंगलूरु मंडल कायाडलय, िजक्षण पजश्चम रेलवे, हुब्बजल्ल
2. 16वीं वाजिनी (मजिला वाजिनी), रेलवे सुरक्षा जविेष बल, आसनसोल कायाडलय
3. रेलवे भती बोडड कायाडलय, प्रयागराि
4. रेलवे भती बोडड कायाडलय, भुवनेश्वर
[फा. सं. हिंिी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2351362)]
डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, जनिेिक, रािभाषा
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2026
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:-
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.
[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(2351362)]
Dr. V. SUGUNA, Director, O.L.
नई दिल्ली, 23 िनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 601.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडड), रािभाषा जनयम, 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के
जनयम-10 के उपजनयम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में रेलवे भती बोडड कायाडलय, मुंबई कायाडलय, जिसमें 80 प्रजतित से
अजिक अजिकाररयों/ कमडचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायडसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िै।
[फा. सं. हिंिी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2358312)]
डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, जनिेिक, रािभाषा
New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2026
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)]
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 602.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडड), रािभाषा जनयम, 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के
जनयम-10 के उपजनयम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में इरकॉन इंटरनेिनल जलजमटेड, िम्मू पररयोिना कायाडलय, िम्मू,
जिसमें 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाररयों/ कमडचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायडसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा
अजिसूजचत करता िै।
[फा. सं. हिंिी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2375242)]
डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, जनिेिक, रािभाषा
New Delhi, the 12th February, 2026
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.
नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 603.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडड), रािभाषा जनयम, 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के
जनयम-10 के उपजनयम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में राइट्स जलजमटेड, गुरुिाम के तीन जनम्नजलजखत अिीनस्ट्थ कायाडलयों
ििााँ 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाररयों/ कमडचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायडसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा
अजिसूजचत करता िै:-
1. राइट्स जलजमटेड, पररयोिना यूजनट, अिमिाबाि, गुिरात
2. राइट्स जलजमटेड, उत्तर पूवड क्षेत्रीय पररयोिना कायाडलय, गुवािाटी, असम
3. आरईएमसी जलजमटेड, भीकािी कामा प्लेस, नई दिल्ली
[फा. सं. हिंिी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(2393404)]
डॉ. वी. सुगुणा, जनिेिक, रािभाषा
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2026
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:-
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
[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(2393404)]
Dr. V. SUGUNA, Director, O.L.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3009
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 604.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार हट्टी
गोल्ड माइन्स के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री इब्राहहम के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 28/2015) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,
प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-43012/01/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED 23rd January 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer
C R No. 28/2015
I Party
II Party
Sh. Ibrahim,
S/o Sheikh Imam Sab,
Gurgunta Post and village,
Lingasugur Taluk,
RAICHUR – 584 122.
The General Manager,
Hutti Gold Mines Limited,
Hutti Post,
RAICHUR – 584 122.
Appearances
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)]
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?”
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:
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?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3011
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?
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)]
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.
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 management
3014
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:
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.
(Dictated to LDC, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 23rd January 2026)
Smt. K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 605.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
कृजतवास लॉजिजस्ट्टक्स (प्रा.) जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री सत्यवान व अन्य, एयरपोटड एम्प्लॉईज़
यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली, पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 216/2015) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-11011/20/2015-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3015
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT
DELHI - 1, NEW DELHI.
ID No. 216/2015
Shri Satyawan & others through Airport Employees Union, BTR Bhawan, 13A,
Rouse Avenue, New Delhi-110002.
…Claimant
Versus
The Director, Kritivaas Logistics (Pvt.) Ltd., L-312, 1st Floor, Gali No.7,
Mahipalpur Extn, New Delhi-110037. Management
AWARD
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:
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.
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 Officer
3016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 606.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj
jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV (40/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y – 41011/56/2016- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th April, 2026
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
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
Zonal Organizing Secretary
North, Railway Karmchari Union Lucknow
In matter of (Shri Akhilesh Chand Dwivedi).
…Claimant
Versus
1- Chief Factory Manager, LOCO Workshop,
Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.
2- Principal, System Technical School,
Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.
…Respondents
AWARD
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:
"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?"
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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,
while he was worked as Instructor/Teacher in the System Technical School, Northern Railway Charbagh, or not?
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)]
पयडवक्षक पजिक्षण केन्र, चारबाग-लखनऊ।
कायाडलय संख्या - 18
आिार पजिक्षण केन्र चारबाग-लखनऊ के अनुिेिक वेतनमान 4500-7000 के चयन िेतु 28/02/05 को जलजखत परीक्षा
तथा 17/05/05 को सम्पन्न साक्षात्कार परीक्षा के फलस्ट्वरूप वररष्ठ कार्मडक अजिकारी (यां०), प्रिान कायाडलय के पत्रांक-
SPO/M/RKS/2005 के अनुसार स्ट्क्रीहनंग कमेटी द्वारा जनम्नजलजखत कमडचाररयों को अनुिेिक पि के जलए प्रोजविनल पेनल
पर रखने के जलए योग्य पाया गया िै।
क्र.
सं .
नाम/सवडश्री
रेड
1.
गोपाल नारायण जमश्रनुिेिक /BTC
अनुिेिक (डीिल/मैके०)
2.
िरीि कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव-एमएफडी. 572
अनुिेिक (डीिल/मैके०)
3.
रािन लाल गुप्ता अनुिेिक/बीटीसी
अनुिेिक (डीिल/जवद्युत)
4.
ओम पकाि-एमसीओ. 113
अनुिेिक (मिीजनष्ट)
5.
जविय बिािुर यािव-अनुिेिक/बीटीसी
अनुिेिक (टूलमेकर)
6.
राम पकाि-वेजल्डग-63
अनुिेिक (वेजल्डग)
7.
अजखलेि चन्र जद्ववेिी-िेपीएम/बीटीसी
अनुिेिक (जमलराइट)
8.
राम अवतार यािव-अनुिेिक/बीटीसी
अनुिेिक (इले०पी. ओ. एच.)
प्रथाकृचायड
पयडवेक्षक प्रजिक्षण 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:-
पयडवक्षक पजिक्षण केन्र, चारबाग-लखनऊ।
कायाडलय आिेि संख्या - 23
मुख्य कारखाना पबंिक के आिेि सख्या 18 दिनांक 16/08/05 के तित श्री अजखलेि चन्र जद्ववेिी-िे०पी०एम०/
बीटीसी/चारबाग, लखनऊ वेतनमान 4000-6000 का चयन अनुिेिक जमलराइट) वेतनमान 4500-7000 में िो गया िै।
तद्नुसार श्री अजखलेि चन्र जद्वबंिी-िे०पी०एम० का वेतन जनिाडरण कर वेतन रूपये 5125/-वेतनमान 4500-7000
अनुिेिक (जमलराइट) के पि पर दिनांक 25/07/05 से स्ट्थाजपत दकया िाता िै। जनयमानुसार जनिाररत टेन्योर की अवजि 8
वषड के जलए िेय िोगा। चात इन्िे अपने कैडर में वापस कर दिया िाएगा तथा इन्िें जिक्षण भत्ता िेय निीं िोगा।
उपरोक्त जवषय पर सक्षम आजिकारी का अनुमोिन पाप्त िै।
प्रिानाचायड
पयडवेक्षक पजिक्षण 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 (केंदीय), 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 (केंिीय)
सेक्टर एच अलीगंि
लखनऊ
जवषय: ID Act 1947 ID between the management of Northern Railway Lucknow and URK Union,
Lucknow श्री अजखलेि चन्र जद्ववेिी, इन्स्ट्रक्टर को इन्स्ट्रक्टर टीहचंग एलाउन्स का भुगतान करने (अनुजचत श्रमाभ्यास) से
सबजित औद्योजगक जववाि।
सिभड आपकी पत्रावली सं० एलकेओ.8 (1-20) 2015 दि. 7.10.15.
श्री अजखलेि चन्र जद्ववेिी, टेक्नीजियन 2 वेतनमान 4000-6000 को दि.14.1.2003 से िेपीएम एक्स कैडर पोस्ट्ट पर समान
वेतनमान में बीटीसी चारबाग, लखनऊ में पोस्ट्ट दकया गया था।
दिनाक 16.04.2004 द्वारा प्रकाजित जवज्ञापन के अनुसार बीटीसी चारबाग में अनुिेिक के ररक्त पिों वेतनमान 4500 से
7000 में समान वेतनमान में कायडरत कमडचाररयों प्राथडनापत्र के माध्यम से आवेिन की मांग की गई थी। समुजचत मात्रा में
आवेिन पत्र न प्राप्त िोने के पररप्रेक्ष्य में प्रिान कायाडलय नई दिल्ली के आिेिानुसार पुनः आवेिन की मांग की गयी दक समान
अथवा एक जनचले वेतनमान में कायडरत कमडचाररयों से भी आवेिन मागे एव स्ट्वीकार दकए िा सकते िै. मांग की गई।
श्री अजखलेि चन्र जद्ववेिी वेतनमान 4000- 6000 ने भी आवेिन दकया था। श्री जद्ववेिी तथा अन्य प्राथडना पत्रों पर जवचार
करते हुए दिनांक 24.02.2005 को जलजखत परीक्षा ली गई तथा दिनाक 17.06.2005 को साक्षात्कार परीक्षा ली गई।
कायाडलय आिेि सं० 18 दि० 16.8.2005 के माध्यम से श्री जद्ववेिी एवं अन्य को अनुिेिक पि वेतनमान 45000-7000 में
सफल घोजषत दकया गया तथा कायाडलय आिेि सं० 23 दिनां 17.10.2005 द्वारा जनयजमत कायडकाल आठ वषड िेतु इनकी
अनुििक पि पर वेतनिर रू.5125 वेतनमान 4500-7000 में जनयुक्त कर ली गई। (प्रजत संलग्न)
काया आिेि स० 23 दि 17.10.2005 में यि स्ट्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेख िै दक इन्िें जिक्षा नािेय निीं िोगा।
सलग्नक उपराक्त
कृते मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंिक
3०२० रेल इंिन कारखाना,
चारबाग, लख
श्रेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (केंिीय), सेक्टर एच, अलीगंि, 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 (केंिीय), सेक्टर एच, अलीगंि, 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 “जनयमानुसार जनिाररत टेन्योर की अवजि 8 वषड के जलए िेय िोगा। चात इन्िे अपने
कैडर में वापस कर दिया िाएगा तथा इन्िें जिक्षण भत्ता िेय निीं िोगा ”, 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 (इन्िें जिक्षण भत्ता िेय निीं िोगा), 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)]
AWARD
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
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 607.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼78@2002½ izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/84/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
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:
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3021
And
The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Renigunta Road, Tirupati A.P
…Respondent
Appearances:
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-12012/84/2000-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:
SCHEDULE
“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.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
3022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common
award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an
outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014
and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in
view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1985 to 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 under
3026
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation
proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be
prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate
Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course
of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in
the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued
that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for
appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last
person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and
31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and
the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman
submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list
which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97
incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been
decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from
1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide
letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial
category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of
settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by
Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary
messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned
that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997.
Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said
office order has been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent
cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
3028
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 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55
years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating
practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited
jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not
and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no
jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or
misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the
question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an
Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section
41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any
such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to
agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section
41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question
and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal
or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or
misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of
settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent
authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned
settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels
on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR
322, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for
a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the
other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous
manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the
Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No.
3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the
workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the
"consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the
picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a
recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in
the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases
where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of
that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the
position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to
due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and
others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs
all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and
the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period
of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
3030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted
service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on
the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year
or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the
date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the
reference of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This
claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for
240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is
in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the
conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in
Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240
days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a
particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as
claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the
Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged
retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated
in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having
held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement
solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the
Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240
days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down
the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides
for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not
rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the
period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the
date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to
determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as
retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date
of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered
service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman
pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in
continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section
25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the
legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect
because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New
Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur
Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman
who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months
shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact
been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3031
period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole
year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on
principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is
not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days
within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the
date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for
the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of
proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just
preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service
in view of the contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo 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.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in
any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank.
Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of
the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
3032
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank
and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of
India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a
circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old
practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel
of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up
branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the
Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its
letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and
that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment
in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was
an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank.
Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the
Respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge
and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the
appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and
conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after
31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless
in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I
regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision
contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view
of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till
last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied 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.”
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
3034
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:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction
to order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the
provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the
status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair
labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to
employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular
workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts
are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number
of years of service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would
be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been
regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit
would amount to a violation of Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule
of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing
them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant
matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer
has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date
of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed
by a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the
provisions of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the
constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a
nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was
permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service
or made permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed
240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services
were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for
absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As
regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as
temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work
and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme
Court and few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme
Court have held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform
to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered
discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose
the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this
obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to
be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a
necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-
arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable
or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the
3036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the
decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is
unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP
No.193/1997, therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it
was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his
services were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis.
Shastry award warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is
now covered by two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in
W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any
mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary
basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not
for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary
appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities
must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his
service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the
state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to
instant case of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
ORDER
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P. Satyanarayana
MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photocopy of notification
Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex. W3: Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex. W4: Photocopy of Service certificate
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7: Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8: Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9: Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
3038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 608.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससड भारत पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमडकार के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, िनबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 16/2020) को िैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ था
[सं. एल- 30011/3/2020-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
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
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None.
For the workman :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Petroleum
Dated 02/02/2026
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3039
SCHEDULE
“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?”
List of workmen
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,
ORDERED
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
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 609.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj iwoZ
jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼68@2013½ izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y – 41011/79/2013-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
3040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 7th April, 2026
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
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
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
AWARD
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 प्रिासन, लखनऊ मंडल द्वारा श्नजमक श्री दिनेि कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव, पानीवाला की सेवाए दिनाक
20-07-1999 से समाप्त दकया िाना न्यायोजचत एवं बैि िै? यदि निीं तो वि दकस रित को पाने का िकिार िै?"
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:-
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.
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:-
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3041
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
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.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
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:-
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):]"
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:
"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
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."
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.
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:-
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3043
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.
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:
“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)
3044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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."
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:
"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."
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:
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.
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:-
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.
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:-
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3045
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.
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:-
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.
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.
AWARD
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)]
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 610.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
गोमते िेनाइट्स के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और जमस्ट्टर िरणप्पा रेडडरू के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 74/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया
िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-154]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 10th OCTOBER 2025
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
I D No. 74/2019
I Party
II Party
Mr. Sharanappa Redderu,
S/o Cjatrappa Redderu,
At Gudur SB, Hirekondagalli Post, Hunagund Taluk,
BAGALKOT -587 154.
The Mines Manager,
Gomatesh Granites,
Hire Kodagalli Post,
Hunagund Taluk,
BAGALKOT – 587 154.
Appearances
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
AWARD
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
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 611.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, एलपीिी बॉटहलंग प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और कनाडटका पेरोजलयम एंड
गैस वकडसड यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 45/2025) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-16]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 3rd FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
C R No. 45/2025
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
Karnataka Petroleum and Gas Workers Union,
CITU Office, Udayanagar, Dooravaninagar
Post, BANGALORE – 560 016.
The Plant Chief Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, LPG Bottling
Plant, Devanagondi, Hosakote Division,
BANGALORE – 560 067.
3048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances
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:
SCHEDULE
“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
AWARD
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
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 612.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
आईओसीएल, एलपीिी बॉटहलंग प्लांट; मेससड वी के इंटरप्राइिेि बॉटहलंग प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
रमेि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
27/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/28/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3049
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
: 5th FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
C R No. 27/2012
I Party
II Party
Sri Ramesh,
S/o late Manjunatha,
No. 83, Chaitan Nialaya B narayanapura,
Dooravani Nagar Post,
BANGALORE – 560 016.
1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG Bottling
Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE.
2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling
Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE .
Appearances
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:
SCHEDULE
“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 any
3050
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.
“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?”
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
“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.”
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.
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3051
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 613.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
आईओसीएल, एलपीिी बॉटहलंग प्लांट; मेससड वी के इंटरप्राइिेि बॉटहलंग प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
पी. वरिरािू के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 28/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/29/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
: 5th FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
C R No. 28/2012
I Party
II Party
Sri P Varadaraju,
S/o V Puttaraju, No. 4/2 Near
Water Tank, B Narayanpura,
Dooravaninagar, Whitefield
Post, BANGALORE – 560
016.
1.
The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG
Bottling Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE.
2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling
Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE .
Appearances
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:
SCHEDULE
“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.
“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?”
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.
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3053
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 614.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार आईओसीएल, एलपीिी बॉटहलंग प्लांट; मेससड वी के इंटरप्राइिेि बॉटहलंग प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों
और श्री एम. मजणवन्नन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर,
पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 29/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/30/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 5th FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
C R No. 29/2012
I Party
II Party
Sri M Manivannan,
S/o Mahadevan, No. 17/3, B
Narayanapura, Dooravaninagar Post,
Whitefield Road,
BANGALORE – 16.
1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant,
IOCL, Devanagundi, BANGALORE.
2.
M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling Plant, IOCL,
Devanagundi, BANGALORE .
Appearances
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:
SCHEDULE
“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:
“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?”
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
“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.”
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 615.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
आईओसीएल, एलपीिी बॉटहलंग प्लांट; मेससड वी के इंटरप्राइिेि बॉटहलंग प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
पी. बी. कृष्णप्पा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 30/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/31/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
: 5th FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB. Presiding Officer
C R No. 30/2012
I Party
II Party
Sri P B Krishnappa,
S/o late Ponnappa, No. 119, B
Narayanapura, Dooravaninagar
Post, Whitefield Road,
BANGALORE – 16.
1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG
Bottling Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE.
2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling
Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE .
Appearances
I Party :
Kumara L Advocate
II Party :
1. Sri B C Prabhakar Advocate
2. Exparte
3056
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:
SCHEDULE
“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:
“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?”
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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
“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.”
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.
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
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 616.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
आईओसीएल, एलपीिी बॉटहलंग प्लांट; मेससड वी के इंटरप्राइिेि बॉटहलंग प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
के. प्रेमकुमार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 31/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/32/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
: 5th FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
C R No. 31/2012
3058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I Party
II Party
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.
1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG
Bottling Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE.
2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling
Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE .
Appearances
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:
SCHEDULE
“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:
“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?”
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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
“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.”
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.
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
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 617.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
आईओसीएल, एलपीिी बॉटहलंग प्लांट; मेससड वी के इंटरप्राइिेि बॉटहलंग प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
के. सुरेि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 32/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/33/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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. Director
3060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
: 5th FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
C R No. 32/2012
I Party
II Party
Sri K Suresh,
S/o late Karithimme Gowda,
No. 58, Rajeshwari Nilaya,
Chikanna Layout, Maheshwari
nagar, 2nd Cross,
Mahadevapura Post,
BANGALORE – 560 048.
1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG
Bottling Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE.
2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling
Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE .
Appearances
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:
SCHEDULE
“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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:
“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?”
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.
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
“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.”
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.
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
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 618.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मैंगनीि ओरे (इंजडया) जलजमटेड; जतरोड़ी मैंगनीि माइंस ऑफ़ मॉयल जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों
और मॉयल कामगार संघटन (इंटक) सी/ओ मॉयल जलजमटेड के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 42/2014-15) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,
प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-27011/4/2014-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
3062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/42/2014-15
Date:06.02.2026.
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).
V/s.
Party No.2:
The Secretary General,
MOIL KamgarSanghatan (INTUC),
C/o MOIL Ltd., MOIL Bhawan,
Katol Road, Nagpur - 440013
AWARD
(Dated:6thFebruary, 2026)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the 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.
ORDER
“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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3063
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 619.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मॉयल जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मॉयल कामगार संगठन मॉयल जलजमटेड के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 21/2024) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-17]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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. Director
3064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/21/2024
Date: 02.02.2026
Party No.1:
The Chairman Cum – Managing Director,
MOIL Ltd., MOIL Bhawan, 1-A, Katol Road
Nagpur-440013
V/s.
Party No.2:
The Secretary General,
MOIL Kamgar Sanghathan MOIL Ltd.,
West Court, Katol Road, Nagpur-440013
Road, Nagpur - 440022
AWARD
(Dated: 2nd February, 2026)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of 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:-
“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?”
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.
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.”
Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 620.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मैंगनीि ओरे (इंजडया) जलजमटेड; कंिरी मैंगनीि माइंस ऑफ़ मॉयल जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मॉयल
कामगार संघटन (इंटक) सी/ओ मॉयल जलजमटेड के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 46/2014-15) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-27011/8/2014-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3065
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/46/2014
Date:06.02.2026.
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
V/s.
Party No.2:
The Secretary General,
MOIL Kamgar Sanghatan (INTUC),
C/o MOIL Ltd., MOIL Bhawan,
Katol Road, Nagpur - 440013
AWARD
(Dated:6thFebruary, 2026)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the 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: -
“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?
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)]
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.”
Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 621.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मैथ्यूज़ टी. हवंगस्ट्टन जसक्योररटी एिेंसी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री मैथ्यू िॉिड के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 04/2024) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-20]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3067
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 27th FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
C R No. 04/2024
I Party
II Party
Shri Mathew George,
21, Prakruti Layout, Horamavu Agara,
Bangalore Urban,
BANGALORE – 560 043.
The Proprietor,
Mathews T Wingston Security Agency, No. 10, 1st
Floor, Haralukunte, Kudlu,
BANGALORE – 560 068.
Appearances
I Party :
None
II 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:
SCHEDULE
“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.
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 Officer
3068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 622.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
आईओसीएल, एलपीिी बॉटहलंग प्लांट; मेससड वी के इंटरप्राइिेि बॉटहलंग प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और
उनके कमडकार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 26/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के साथ 06.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/34/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
: 27th FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB., Presiding Officer
C R No. 26/2012
I Party
II Party
1. Sri Ramasundaram, No. 136, 6th
Cross, Jai Jawan Nagar,
Banaswadi Road,
BANGALORE – 560 053.
1. The Plant Manager, IOCL, LPG Bottling
Plant, IOCL, Devanagundi,
BANGALORE.
2. M/s. V K Enterprises, Indane Bottling
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
Appearances
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:
SCHEDULE
“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 and
3070
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:
“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?”
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
“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.”
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.
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3071
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 623.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a220/2002) izdkf'kkr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/369/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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 which
3072
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:
SCHEDULE
“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 10th day
of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 624.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a248/2002) izdkf'kkr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12012@6@2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3073
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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. 248/2002
Between:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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:-
“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.”
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 625.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a155/2002) izdkf'kkr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/108/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3075
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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. 155/2002
[old ID No.101/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]
Between:
Sri R. Srinivasa Rao,
C/o Ch. Ranga Rao,
State Bank of India Main Branch,
Gudivada -521301. Krishna Distt.
…Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region II,
Vijayawada -520 001.
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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)]
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 626—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a273/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/35/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3077
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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. 273/2002
Between:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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.
3078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.”
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 627.—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a215/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/396/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3079
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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.
3080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 628.—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a216/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/397/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3081
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.
[No. L-12012/397/2001- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 216/2002
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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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.
3082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 629.—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a239/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/442/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
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.
[No. L-12012/442/2001- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 25th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 239/2002
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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
3084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 630.—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a94/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/94/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
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.
[No. L-12012/94/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 24th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 94/2002
[Old ID No.91/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3085
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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.
2.
Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye
view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch
cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of
the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the
aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ
petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases
by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State
Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to
their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy
arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch
petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of
2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High
Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal
was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,
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.
4.
That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the
Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were
listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have
completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed
minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate
temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.
5.
The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and
the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.
Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the
suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the
selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be
valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. “there will be no
temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre”, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, “from
amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank”. The Workman further submits that
consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for
responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was
held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to
be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is
mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was
entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, “to all eligible temporary
employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the
years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the
panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have
been pursuing their cases thereafter, “will be given another chance to appear for interview”.
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st
settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd
settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement
(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all
these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the
list of the selected candidates arose with that it’s a question of time their appointments or services would be
regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under
the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options
elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was
made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7.
Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated
16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were
specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted
to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel
and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon’ble High court of A.P.. It is
specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement
and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon’ble High
court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It
also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon’ble High
Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the
directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of
the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a
settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid
upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the
basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide
impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable
expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the
settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
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.
3088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation’s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
3090
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."
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 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:-
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 :-
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, 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3091
Findings:-
25.
Point No.I:-
Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and
30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed
between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of
I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
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.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
3094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the
contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“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..”
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3095
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
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
3096
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.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3097
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied in response to the 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.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
3098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
3100
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.
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.
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri K. Suryanarayana
MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 631.—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
cSad vkWQ cMksnk
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a4/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-39025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- II)-32]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
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.
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-32]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 11nd day of December, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2025
Between:
Shri Holiga Ananthakumar,
16-113-A1 Uma Nagar Old Town Anantapur,
Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh-515001
9701970135
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Chief General Managger
Bank of Baroda ( Earlier Vijaya Bank),
N.T.Road, Adoni, Kurnool District-538301
… Respondents
3102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
AWARD
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,
SCHEDULE
“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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 632.—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a34/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/401/2000-vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
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.
[No. L-12012/401/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 24th day of February, 2026
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3103
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 34/2001
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
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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:-
“ 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,
3104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated
20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 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.
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 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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
3106
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.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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
3108
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."
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 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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:-
25.
Point No.I:-
Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and
30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed
between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of
I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
3110
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 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3111
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
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--
3112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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 her cross examination has stated that,
“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.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
3114
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.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation’s
affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate
cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.
Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the
Federation’s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel
of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the
agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank
that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual
employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3115
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied for appointment as 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.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
3116
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.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
3118
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.
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.
AWARD
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3119
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Smt. B. Suseelamma
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 633.—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a31/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/328/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
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.
[No. L-12012/328/2001- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
3120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 25th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31/2002
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
AWARD
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,
SCHEDULE
“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.
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 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 25th day
of February, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3121
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 634.—औद्योहगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योहगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योहगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a170/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-32]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
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.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-32]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 5th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 170/2025
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 ltd
3122
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
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent(s): Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate of R2
AWARD
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,
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?”
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 5th day
of February, 2026
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 635.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a43/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/446/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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
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. 43/2001
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
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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 batch
3124
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:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 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.
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 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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.
3126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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
3128
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."
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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:-
25.
Point No.I:-
Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and
30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed
between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of
I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
3130
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:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3131
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(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].
3132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3133
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the
contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo 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.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
3134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation’s
affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate
cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.
Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the
Federation’s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel
of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the
agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank
that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual
employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied for appointment as messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in 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.”
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
3136
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.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3137
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
3138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of
the Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of
Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh, and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was
decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently.
A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was
entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to
December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were
to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse.
MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time
attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial
positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the
empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the
copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding
was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on
31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving
the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel,
Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989
panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come, he could not be given
permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance
with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of
days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not
sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment
as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in
the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1
states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these
panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees.
Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents, Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter.
However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover, the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such, but their services were not utilized after the 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3139
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri N. Madhusudhan Rao
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 636.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a80/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/524/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
3140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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. 80/2001
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
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the Service of the 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.
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
3142
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3143
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
3144
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.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation’s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
3146
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.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W16. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support
of his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the Transfer Certificate. 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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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:-
25.
Point No.I:-
Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and
30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed
between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of
I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3147
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
3148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
3150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provision
contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo 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…..”
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
3152
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.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:-
“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.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
3154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
3156
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.
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.
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri S. Ramachandram
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 637.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a50/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/383/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 26th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 50/2001
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
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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: -
“ 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated
20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1985 to 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.
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 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
3160
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees 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
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
3162
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex. W1 to W12. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support
of his claim which are discussed as under: -
Ex.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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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:-
25.
Point No.I:-
Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and
30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed
between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of
I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
3166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3167
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
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."
3168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the
contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my
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.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation’s
affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate
cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.
Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the
Federation’s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel
of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the
agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank
that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual
employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
3170
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.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in terms of 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.”
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3171
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
3172
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.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3173
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of
Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh, and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was
decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently.
A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was
entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to
December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were
to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse.
MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time
attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial
positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the
empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the
copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding
was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on
31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving
the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel,
Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989
panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come, he could not be given
permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance
with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of
days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not
sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment
as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in
the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1
states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these
panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees.
Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents, Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter.
However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover, the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such, but their services were not utilized after the 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)]
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri V. Venugopal MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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.
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 638.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3175
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a49/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/382/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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
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
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 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.
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 affidavit
3178
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.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation’s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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 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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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:-
25.
Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,
minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947
read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
3182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
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
3184
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:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3185
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the
contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my
appointment..”
“I did not work for 240 days in any year in any one branch in my entire service in the bank.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
3186
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the
settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature
of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D.
Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated
30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no
legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied 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
3188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
any person who had worked for less no. of days than me was given appointment in the bank.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
3190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of
Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh, and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was
decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently.
A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was
entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to
December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were
to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse.
MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time
attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial
positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the
empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the
copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding
was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on
31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving
the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel,
Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989
panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come, he could not be given
permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance
with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of
days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not
sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment
as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in
the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1
states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these
panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees.
Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents, Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter.
However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover, the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri V. Venugopal
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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.
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
3192
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
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 639.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a85/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/529/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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. 85/2001
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
AWARD
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3193
SCHEDULE
“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:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated
20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the Service of the 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.
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 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3195
absorb them in service.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
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
3196
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.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation’s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
3198
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."
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 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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3199
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
3200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3201
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
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
3202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provisions
contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“ I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not 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.”
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
3204
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.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:-
“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.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
3206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
3208
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.
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.
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P. Vinod
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.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
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 640.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a105/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/460/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 105/2001
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
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3211
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated
20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the Service of the 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.
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 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
3212
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.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
3214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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."
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 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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
3216
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.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
3218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provision
contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular process required for
3220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointment in the bank ..”
“I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had
worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation’s
affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate
cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.
Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the
Federation’s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel
of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the
agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank
that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual
employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
3222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied in response to 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.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3223
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
3224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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.
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri B. Sivanarayana
MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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)]
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 641.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a94/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/380/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 94/2001
Between:
Sri. C. Magharaj,
S/o Ramaswamy,
H.No. 12-1-1006,
Old Mallepally,
Kummariwadi,
Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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:-
“ 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!;
3228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated
20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the Service of the 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.
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 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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.
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".
3230
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
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3231
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 under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
3232
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."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W12. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support
of his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the 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.
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : 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 :-
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, 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.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
3234
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 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs. The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II
LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3235
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
3236
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:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provision
contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3237
“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.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had
worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
3238
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.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation’s
affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate
cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.
Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the
Federation’s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel
of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the
agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank
that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual
employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3239
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied in response to an advertisement issued by the bank as per 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.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
3240
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.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3241
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
3242
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.
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.
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri C. Megharaj
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3243
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
3244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 642.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a98/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/452/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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. 98/2001
Between:
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
Appearances:
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3245
SCHEDULE
“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.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common
award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an
outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and
batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of
the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated
20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the Service of the 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 the
3246
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.
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 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—खण् ड 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.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
3248
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.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
[भाग II—खण् ड 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.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation’s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
3250
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."
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 W6. 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 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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3251
Findings:-
25.
Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,
minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947
read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation
proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed
and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and
the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course
of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in
the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued
that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for
appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last
person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and
31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and
the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman
submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list
which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97
incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been
decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide
letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial
category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of
settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by
Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary
messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned
that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997.
Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said
office order has been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent
cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh.....
1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years.
The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the
same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1).
3252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction.
It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the
parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide
whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the
representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was
never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement
arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact,
constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed.
What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever
either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a
grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum
and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act,
1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether
retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or
misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of
settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent
authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned
settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels
on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR
322, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a
finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other
hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner.
The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the
settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal
devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find
out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not
and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind
is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the
picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a
recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the
best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where
there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind
has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima
facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and
consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others
bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the
other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has
to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before
this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this
settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we
cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the
period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are
negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated
above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen
has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this
settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the
Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the
substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
[भाग II—खण् ड 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.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the
period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the
notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen
days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted
service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident
or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of
the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or
six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the
date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the
reference of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
3254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim
was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days
in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor
and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in
fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v.
S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in
that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient
for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the
Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged
retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in
paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held
so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on
an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the
Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240
days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down
the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for
a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not
rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the
period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the
date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to
determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment.
After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment
and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of
240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming
fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a
period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because
in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and
Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and
Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman
who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall
be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in
such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12
months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on
principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is
not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days
within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the
date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the
purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof
lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding
from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provisions
contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3255
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in
any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank.
Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of
the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had
worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
3256
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.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation’s
affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate
cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.
Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the
Federation’s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel
of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the
agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank
that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual
employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank
and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of
India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a
circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice
from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible
candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise.
Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the
first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the
Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their
names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the
bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3257
expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of
their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right
they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in the writ
petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and
conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after
31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless
in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I
regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision
contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view
of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till
last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in 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.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in
terms of various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India
and it was prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the
Workman himself admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were
given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to
show that any person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank.
Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list
in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of
WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well
as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There
is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the
seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from
panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on
31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
3258
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.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to
order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions
contained in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the
status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour
practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ
workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen
on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts
are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of
years of service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would
be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been
regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit
would amount to a violation of Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule
of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing
them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant
matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer
has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
[भाग II—खण् ड 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:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed
by a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the
provisions of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the
constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a
nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible,
but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made
permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of
work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be
regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for
absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As
regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as
temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work
and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme
Court and few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme
Court have held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform
to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered
discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the
duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a
part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in
his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the
decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action,
it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the
persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to
an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so
made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate
discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial
review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it
was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services
were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award
warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by
two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of
1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint
employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in
the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if
again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has
got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
3260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities
must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his
service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to
instant case of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.
Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels
and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such
employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the
counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the
available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the
date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in
the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for
absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not
established.
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.
AWARD
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—खण् ड 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P. Subba Raju
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 643.—औद्योनगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योनगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योनगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a96/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/445/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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. Director
3262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 96/2001
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
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3263
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the Service of the 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.
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
3264
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.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3265
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
3266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the
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—खण् ड 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.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation’s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
3268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to 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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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:-
25.
Point No.I:-
Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and
30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed
between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of
I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3269
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
3270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3271
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
3272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provision
contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo 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.”
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 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.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
3274
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.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का 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:-
“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.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
3276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the
Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has
indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme Court have
held:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3277
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
3278
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.
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.
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri B.R. Saibaba
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
[भाग II—खण् ड 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.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
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 644.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a108/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/463/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 108/2001
Between:
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, Advocate
3280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
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:
SCHEDULE
“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.
2.
Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye
view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch
cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of
the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the
aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ
petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases
by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State
Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to
their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy
arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch
petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of
2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High
Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal
was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the
Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons
more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons
have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement,
drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the
same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on
individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-
employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the
individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the
format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the
Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe
Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions,
issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration
of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials
already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel
appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further
action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common
award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an
outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and
batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of
the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
[भाग II—खण् ड 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.
4.
That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the
Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were
listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have
completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed
minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate
temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.
5.
The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and
the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.
Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the
suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the
selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be
valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. “there will be no
temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre”, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, “from
amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank”. The Workman further submits that
consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for
responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was
held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to
be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is
mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was
entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, “to all eligible temporary
employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the
years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the
panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have
been pursuing their cases thereafter, “will be given another chance to appear for interview”.
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st
settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd
settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement
(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all
these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the
list of the selected candidates arose with that it’s a question of time their appointments or services would be
regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under
the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options
elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was
made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7.
Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated
16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were
specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted
to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel
and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon’ble High court of A.P.. It is
specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement
and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon’ble High
court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It
also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon’ble High
Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the
directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of
the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a
settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid
upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the
basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide
impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable
expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the
settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
3282
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.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का 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.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
3284
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.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation’s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
[भाग II—खण् ड 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."
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 W8. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
his claim which are discussed as under:-
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.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated
27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of
Understanding are binding upon both the parties?
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, 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:-
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.
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:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation
proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed
and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and
the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course
of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in
the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued
that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for
appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last
person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and
31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and
the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman
submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list
which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97
incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
“We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been
decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.”
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide
letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial
category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of
settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by
Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary
messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned
that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997.
Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said
office order has been issued to this effect that, “Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent
cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.” Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years.
The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the
same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction.
It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the
parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide
whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the
representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3287
never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement
arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact,
constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed.
What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever
either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a
grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum
and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act,
1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether
retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or
misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of
settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent
authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned
settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels
on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR
322, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a
finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other
hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner.
The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the
settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal
devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find
out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not
and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind
is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the
picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a
recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the
best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where
there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind
has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima
facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and
consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others
bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the
other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has
to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before
this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this
settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we
cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the
period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are
negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated
above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen
has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this
settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the
Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the
substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
3288
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.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the
period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the
notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen
days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted
service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident
or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of
the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or
six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the
date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim
was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days
in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor
and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in
fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3289
S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in
that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient
for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the
Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged
retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in
paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held
so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on
an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the
Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240
days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down
the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for
a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not
rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the
period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the
date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to
determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment.
After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment
and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of
240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming
fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a
period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because
in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and
Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and
Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman
who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall
be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in
such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12
months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on
principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is
not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days
within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the
date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the
purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of
proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just
preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service
provision contained Under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange 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.”
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
3290
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.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
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—खण् ड 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.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation’s
affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate
cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.
Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the
Federation’s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel
of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the
agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank
that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual
employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank
and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of
India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a
circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice
from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible
candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise.
Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the
first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the
Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their
names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the
bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel
expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, 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
3292
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.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank 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
bank.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in
terms of various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India
and it was prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the
Workman himself admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were
given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to
show that any person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank.
Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list
in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of
WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well
as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There
is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the
seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from
panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on
31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
[भाग II—खण् ड 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.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon’ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
“(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to
order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions
contained in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the
status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour
practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ
workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen
on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts
are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of
years of service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would
be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been
regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit
would amount to a violation of Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule
of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing
them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.
Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant
matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer
has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by
continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,
as regular workmen on lower wages.
43.
Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the
panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is
contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no
occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any
evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the
workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
3294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by
a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions
of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of
equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible,
but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made
permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of
work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be
regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for
absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As
regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as
temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work
and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme
Court and few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon’ble Supreme
Court have held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform
to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered
discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the
duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a
part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in
his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the
decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action,
it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the
persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to
an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so
made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate
discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial
review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon’ble High Court have held,
“Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it
was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services
were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award
warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by
two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of
1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint
employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in
the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if
again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has
got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities
must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his
service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to
instant case of Workman.
47.
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—खण् ड 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.
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.
AWARD
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Kothakota Nagaraja
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
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
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 645.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a141/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/376/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
3296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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
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. 141/2001
Between:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri
Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3297
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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 646.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a153/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/424/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026
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. Director
3298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 153/2001
Between:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 647.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a155/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/427/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 155/2001
Between:
Sri P. Gangaiah,
Maddelavaripalli,
Vootupalli( P.O.)
Kalikiri - 517234
Chittor District.
… Petitioner
3300
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3301
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 648.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a154/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/426/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 154/2001
Between:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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)]
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3303
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 649.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a234/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/137/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 234/2001
Between:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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)]
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3305
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 650.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a247/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/175/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 247/2001
Between:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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)]
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3307
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 651.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a233/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/136/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 233/2001
Between:
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
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)]
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3309
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 652.—औद्योनगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योनगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योनगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a230/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/135/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 230/2001
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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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)]
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 653.—औद्योनगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योनगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योनगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a232/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/98/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3311
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. 232/2001
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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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.
3312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 654.—औद्योनगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योनगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योनगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a227/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/132/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 227/2001
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—खण् ड 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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
3314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 655.—औद्योनगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योनगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योनगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a234/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/130/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 234/2001
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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3315
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 656.—औद्योनगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योनगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योनगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a207/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/46/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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. Director
3316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 207/2001
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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3317
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 657.—औद्योनगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योनगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योनगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a204/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/42/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
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. 204/2001
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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 658.—औद्योनगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योनगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योनगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a205/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12012/43/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप ननिेशक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 18, 2026/चैत्र 28, 1948
3319
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2026
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
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR,L Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 205/2001
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
AWARD
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:-
SCHEDULE
“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.
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:-
“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
3320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 18, 2026/CHAITRA 28, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
those points and matters incidental thereto.”
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. 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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
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.
KUMER CHAND
MEENA
Digitally signed by KUMER
CHAND MEENA
Date: 2026.04.30 12:07:44
+05'30'