2631 GI/2026
(3321)
रजजस्ट्री 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. 15]
नई दिल् ली, अप्रैल 19—अप्रैल 25, 2026, िजनवार/चैत्र 29—वैिाख 5, 1948
No. 15]
NEW DELHI, APRIL 19—APRIL 25, 2026, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 29––VAISAKHA 5, 1948
इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ् सं् या िी जाती िै जजससे दक यि ृृ क संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी 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)
रसायन और उववरक मंत्रालय
(उववरक जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 659.—सरकारी स्ट् ान (अप्राजिकृत अजिभोजगयों की बेिखली) अजिजनयम, 1971 की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त
िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंद्र सरकार उि अजिजनयम के प्रयोजन के जलए जनम्नजलजखत ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में
उजल्लजखत अजिकारी को एस्ट्टेट अजिकारी के प ृ में जनयुि करती िै, जो सरकार के राजृजत्रत अजिकारी के समकक्ष रैंक
की अजिकारी िोंगी, जो उि ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में तत् संगत प्रजवजम में जनर्दिम सरकारी स्ट् ानों की श्रेजियों के संबंि में
उनके अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् ानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उि अजिजनयम द्वारा या उसके तित प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करेंगी
और उि अजिजनयम के तित एस्ट्टेट अजिकारी ृर लागू कतव्य
ों का जनवविन करेंगी।
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-11052026-272407
CG-DL-W-11052026-272407
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-11052026-272407
CG-DL-W-11052026-272407
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12052026-272407
CG-DL-W-12052026-272407
3322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ताजलका
अजिकारी का नाम और ृिनाम
सरकारी स्ट् ान की श्रेजियां और अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् ानीय सीमाएं
(1)
(2)
श्रीमती सायन कोंगारी, सलािकार,
केंद्रीय कायावलय, फर्टटलाइजर
कॉरृोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड,
नोएडा, उत्तर प्रिेि
फर्टटलाइजर कॉरृोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड, गोरखृुर (उत्तर प्रिेि)-273007 और
फर्टटलाइजर कॉरृोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड, लखनऊ (उत्तर प्रिेि)-226024 से संबंजित
या उनके द्वारा ग्रिि दकया गया स्ट् ान (ृररसर)
[फा. सं. 100/6/2019-एचआर-I]
मनोज कुमार, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS
(Department of Fertilizers)
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 659.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of
table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of Gazette Officer of Government, to be the Estate Officer for the
purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by
or under the said Act within the local limits of her jurisdiction in respect of the categories of public premises specified
in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table.
TABLE
Name & Designation of the
Officer
Categories of the public premises and local limits of jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
Smt. Sion Kongari, Advisor,
Central
Office,The
Fertilizer
Corporation of India Limited,
NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh
Premises belonging to or taken over by the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited,
Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh) - 273007 and Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited,
Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) - 226024
[F. No. 100/6/2019-HR-I]
MANOJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 23 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 660.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बीसीसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] िनबाि-I
ds iapkV (
169/2001) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/199/2001-आईआर-(सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2026
S.O. 660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 169/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BCCL. and their workmen. received by the Central Government on 10/03/2026.
[No. L-20012/199/2001– IR (CM-I]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3323
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. 169/2001
Parties:
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area No.3
of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
AND
Their Workman
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None.
For the workman :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 05/02/2026
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-20012/199/2001 -IR(C-I) dated 11/07/2001 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of Govindpur Area No.3 of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad and their workman through Vice
President, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
―क्या भारत को. को. लऱ., गोव िंदऩुर ऺेत्र-3 के प्रबिंधतिंत्र द् ारा श्री बधन दास सुऩुत्र श्री बीरबऱ दास को अनुकिंऩा आधार
ऩर ननयुक्क्त न ददया जाना न्यायसिंगत ए िं उचित है? यदद नह िं तो उक्त आ ेदक ककस राहत के ऩात्र हैं ?‖
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-20012/199/2001 -IR(C-I) dated 11/07/2001 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 169 of 2001 was registered on 09.08.2001 and
thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with
relevant documents and 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 after 2006 this case was put up after a long gap on 16.09.2021 and registered notices
were issued to both the parties but workman/union failed to appear before this Tribunal. However Sri D.K. Verma,
Ld. Advocate on behalf of the management appeared.
5. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that workman/union never appeared before this Tribunal since
January 2022 which shows that he has lost his interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case
deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.
6. 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
3324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 661.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj िोटल कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेडds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] मुंबई-1,ds iapkV (
1/03/2015) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-11012/05/2014-आईआर-(सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/03/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Hotel Corporation of India Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-11012/05/2014– IR (CM-I]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 03 of 2015
Employers in relation to the management of
Hotel Corporation of India Ltd.
V/s.
Their Workmen()
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Ms. Geeta Raju (Adv.)
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 06th day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-11012/05/2014-IR(CM-
I) dated 10.02.2015 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section(1) sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether the demand of United Labour Union, Mumbai for providing pay structure and service conditions
similar to Air India Ltd./Indian Airlines Ltd., employees to the Dining Facilities Centre employees of Hotel
corporations of India Ltd. working at Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai w.e.f. 01.01.2010 without
curtailing the beneficial rights and privileged to the said workmen as employees of Hotel Corporation of
India Ltd is just and proper? To what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not filed any evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in
spite of opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case
of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out 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 produce
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3325
evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he
would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K.
Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of
the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A
perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the
respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Since no evidence has been filed by the union in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 662.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
-सि-
] मुंबई-1,ds iapkV (
21/2011) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22011/07/2011-आईआर-(सीएम- II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Food Corporation of India and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22011/07/2011– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 21 of 2011
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Food Corporation of India
3326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s.
Their Workman
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Ms. Geeta Raju(Adv.)
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 03rd day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government vide Order No. L-22011/07/2011-IR(CM-
II) dated 17.06.2011, passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section
(2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The terms of reference are as under:
―Whether the action of the management of M/s. Food Corporation of India in proposing to change the
practice of payment of overtime to DPS workers @ 1.1 times of the normal rate instead of double the normal
rates of wages w.e.f. 10/11/2010 vide Circular No. Goa/DPS/Gen/OTA/97-2002 dated 24/11/2010 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?‖
Pursuant to the reference, notices were issued to both parties.
The Management appeared and filed the affidavit of MW-1 in support of its case.
The matter was thereafter fixed on several dates for:
cross-examination of the Management witness, and
leading of evidence by the workmen.
Despite several opportunities granted by this Tribunal, the workmen:
did not cross-examine MW-1, and
did not lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of their claim.
Accordingly, the evidence of the Management remained unchallenged and unrebutted.
It is well settled that:
the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts illegality, and
where a party fails to cross-examine a witness or adduce evidence despite sufficient opportunity, the
pleadings remain unsubstantiated.
In the present case, the workmen have failed to discharge their burden. The affidavit of MW-1 has gone unchallenged,
and no material is placed on record to establish that the change in overtime payment is illegal or unjustified.
In absence of any evidence from the workmen, this Tribunal finds no reason to disbelieve or discard the
Management‘s version.
The Tribunal therefore answers the reference as under:
The action of the Management of M/s. Food Corporation of India in proposing to change the practice of payment of
overtime as per Circular dated 24/11/2010 is legal and justified.
The workmen are not entitled to any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered accordingly and stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 663.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एयर इंजडया इंजीजनयररग सर्ववस जलजमटेडds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] मुंबई-1,ds iapkV (
04/2022) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-11012/13/2020-आईआर-(सीएम- I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3327
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Air India Engineering Service Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026
[No. L-11012/13/2020– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 04 of 2022
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
1.Air India Engineering Services Ltd.
2.Air India Ltd.
V/s.
All India Aircraft Engineering Association
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Absent
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 03rd day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-11012/13/2020-IR(CM-
I) dated 02/05/2022 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section (1) read with sub-section (2A)
of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether the dispute raised by Air India Aircraft Engineering Association, Mumbai against the management
of Air India Engineering Services Ltd. over implementation of revised pay structure of Aircraft Maintenance
Engineers, Claiming that it is anomalous and discriminatory justified and legal? If yes, to what relief the
concerned Air India Aircraft Maintenance Engineer are entitled to ?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any statement of claim/ evidence in support of his
case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the
Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.
Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative
for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out 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 produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in
favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would
be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
3328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A
perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the
respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Since no statement of claim has been filed by the union in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
JusticE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 664.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एयर इंजडया इंजीजनयररग सर्ववस जलजमटेडds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] मुंबई-1,ds iapkV (
12/2025) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20013/01/2026-आई.आर. (सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 664.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Air India Engineering Service Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-20013/01/2026– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 12 of 2025
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Air India Engineering Services Ltd,
V/s.
Air Corporations Employees Union
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Ms. Deepika Agarwal(Adv.)
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 06th day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. B.ALC(c )-I/8(37)2017
dated 30/04/2025 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section(5) of Section 12 read with sub-
section(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said
order are as under:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3329
“Whether the demand of Air Corporation Employees Union(Mumbai Region) for payment of overtime as per
the Factory Act, 1948 is just, fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workmen represented by Air
Corporation Employees Union(Mumbai Region) are entitled?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any statement of claim/ evidence in support of his
case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the
Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial Court setting out 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 produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the
workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal
of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent.
In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Since no statement of claim has been filed by the union in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 15 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 665.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a24/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल –12012/327/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2026
S.O. 665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.24/2001) 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-12012/327/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
3330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 17th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 24/2001
Between:
Sri T. Balaram,
S/o Narasimha,
H.No. 7-151,
Harizana Basti,
Medchal,
R.R. District-501401.
… 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-12012/327/2000-IR(B.I) dated
19.04.2001 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 T. Balram Temporary/Non-Messenger, by way of oral orders 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. 24/2001 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3331
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated
20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1990 to 1992, and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 6 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‖.
3332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement
(Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex
M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In
between there 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3333
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.The management
has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the
3334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent
letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing
of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to
engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It
was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies
till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating
the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and
hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential
benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the
settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was
extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that
while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily
wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3335
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also 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:-
3336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W1 is the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner. Ex.W2 is the Medical age. Ex.W3 is the Memo of marks. Ex.W4 is
the Residential Cerificate. Ex.W5 is the certificate dated 10.01.1992 issued by the Respondent. Ex.W6 is the
certificate dated 23.01.1997 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, ADB Anantapur branch in terminating the services of
Workman Sri T. Balaram 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 empanelled 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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3337
―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
3338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3339
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
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."
3340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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 of selection before my
engagement as temporary messenger in the branch..”
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank in any branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3341
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
3342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 Memo of marks.
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 and the union in
the year 1989…. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by
the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given
regular appointment in the in the 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3343
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 Memo of marks 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 Memo of marks has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is
no occasion to extend the life of Memo of marks 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
Memo of marks. 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
3344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Memo of marks.
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
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3345
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.
Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels
and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such
employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the
counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the Panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the
available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the
date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in
the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for
absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of Panel list is found not
established.
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 T. Balaram 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.
3346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed
by me on this the 17th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri T. Balaram
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Caste Certificate of the Petitioner
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Medical age certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Memo of marks
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of the Residential Certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of certificate dated 10.01.1992 issued by the Respondent
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of certificate dated 23.01.1997 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, 15 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 666.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a56/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल –12012/455/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2026
S.O. 666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 56/2001) 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-12012/455/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3347
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 18th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 56/2001
Between:
Sri P.V. Rajeev,
S/o. P. I. Velayudhan,
LIG-90, A.P.I.I.C Colony,
Near Round building, Kamalanagar,
ECIL Post, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Department)
State Bank of India,
Local Head office,
Bank SP 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-12012/455/2000-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 P.V. Rajeev 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. 56/2001 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:-
3348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1987 to 1997 and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years. The Respondent has terminated services of
Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank
decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait-
listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.
4.
That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the
Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed.
That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed
270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum
of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service
in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.
5.
The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and
the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.
Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the
suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the
selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be
valid 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 up to 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‖.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3349
6.
Workman submits that there was 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.
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
3350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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/ attenders/ 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 in spite 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3351
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 up to 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
3352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 up to 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 affected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to
be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also examined
Sri K.R. Ramachandran Pillai as WW2. He has filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex. W1 to
W21. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as
under:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3353
Ex.W1 is the Study certificates of the Petitioner. Further Ex.W2 is the Study Certificate. Ex.W3 is the Residential
certificate. Ex. W4 is the Marks memo. Ex. W5 is the Sports Certificates. Ex. W6 is the sports Certificate. Ex. W7 is
the Transfer Certificate. Ex. W8 is the Employment card. Ex. W9 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W10 is the service
certificate. Ex. W11 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W12 is the paper publication/Notice. Ex. W13 is the Call letter for
interview. Ex. W14 is the Panel list. Ex. W15 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W16 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W17
is the Service Certificate. Ex. W18 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W19 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W20 is the
Service Certificate. Ex. W21 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 in terminating the services
of Workman Sri P.V. Rajeev, 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.
3354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3355
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(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].
3356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3357
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,
“My name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and there was no paper notification for appointment as
Attender.”
“I did not work for 240 days in any of the year I worked 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.
Although the petitioner has also examined WW2 Sri K.R. Ramachandran Pillai to corroborate his claim, but this
witness in his cross examination has stated that he cannot say on what date he worked along with the petitioner in the
bank and during which month they have worked together in the branch. Further, witness has admitted that he has not
filed any documents to show that he had worked along with the petitioner. Further, witness added that he is not having
any proof to show that he along with the petitioner was terminated from service. Further, witness added that he had
no proof to show that any of their juniors are working and there are any vacancies in the bank. Thus, from the
statement of WW2, the claim of the petitioner is not corroborated in material.
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.
3358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3359
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 was called interview in the year 1989 pursuant the settlements entered into between the bank and the union….
Further, witness states, It is true that the panel is Ex.W14 was prepared depending upon the no. of days the employees
worked and I don’t have any proof to show that any person whose name is below my name was given employment 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
3360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3361
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
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
3362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3363
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.V. Rajeev, 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 18th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P.V. Rajeev
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
WW2: Sri K.R. Ramachandran Pillai
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. W1:
Photocopy of Study certificates of the Petitioner
Ex. W2:
Photocopy of Study certificate
Ex. W3:
Photocopy of Residential certificate
Ex. W4:
Photocopy of Marks memo
Ex. W5:
Photocopy of Sports Certificates
Ex. W6:
Photocopy of Transfer Certificate
Ex. W7:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W8:
Photocopy of Employment card
Ex. W9:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W10:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W11:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W12:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W13:
Photocopy of call letter for interview
Ex. W14:
Photocopy of panel list
Ex. W15:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W16:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W17:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W18:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W19:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W20:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex. W21:
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
3364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 667.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृवन िंस जलजमटेडds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa
-सि-
] मुंबई-1,ds iapkV (
23/2022) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y – 11012/11/2022- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Pawan Hans Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-11012/11/2022– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 23 of 2022
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
The Pawan Hans Ltd.
V/s.
Their Workmen()
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Mr. L.D‘souza(Adv.)
For the second party workmen
: Mr. G.S. Naik(Adv.)
Mumbai, dated the 04rd day of February, 2026.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3365
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No.L-11012/11/2022(IR(CM-
I) dated 31/10/2022 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section (1) read with sub-section (2A)
of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether Captain R.K. Mahajan is a workman or not as per the definition of workman under section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?”
If yes, whether demand raised by the President, Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana for reinstatement in
service of Captain R.K. Mahajan with full back w3ages and continuity of service with effect from the date of
termination against the action of the management of M/s Pawan Hans Limited over the issue of alleged
illegal termination of the services of Captain R K Mahajan is proper, legal and justified? If yes, what relief
he is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has filed an application for disposal of matter as withdrawn It is
well settled that an industrial dispute, though referred for adjudication, can be permitted to be withdrawn at the
instance of the workmen/union, provided such withdrawal is voluntary and unconditional.
Courts have consistently held that where the workman or union does not wish to pursue the reference, the Tribunal
cannot compel adjudication on merits and the proper course is to dispose of the reference as withdrawn, without
examining the legality or justification of the employer‘s action.
In such circumstances:
The Tribunal does not adjudicate the merits of the dispute, and
No relief can be granted, as the claimant has chosen not to press the claim.
The reference is disposed of as withdrawn at the instance of the claimant union/workmen.
No adjudication is made on the merits of the dispute. The union/workmen are not entitled to any relief.
No order as to costs.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 668.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ब्लूडाटव एजवएिन जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] मुंबई-1,ds iapkV (
17/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y – 11012/09/2019- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Bluedart Aviation Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-11012/09/2019– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 17 of 2019
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s. Bluedart Aviation Ltd,
V/s.
Their Workmen(Mr. Abhinav Sharma)
3366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Ms. Geeta Raju(Adv.)
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 03rd day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-11012/09/2019
(IR(CM-I)) dated 13/05/2019 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section (1) read with sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said
order are as under:
“Whether Shri Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Aricraft Maintenance Engineer employed in the establishment of M/s.
Blue Dart Aviation Ltd, is a workman under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947,? If so,
whether the action of the management in stopping him from the work vide email dated 06.10.2017, with
immediate effect without according principle of natural justice to him is just proper & legal? If not, what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not filed evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in
spite of several opportunities in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as
laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR
194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial Court setting out 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 produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the
workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal
of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent.
In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Since the claimant/workman has not filed evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities
given to him, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
JusticE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 669.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इंजडया एयरलाइंस जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] मुंबई-1,ds iapkV (
1/54/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y – 11012/62/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3367
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/54/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. India Airlines Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026
[No. L-11012/62/2001– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,
MUMBA
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-54 of 2003
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
1. M/s. Livewell Aviation Services
Navjivan Society, 12th Floor,
6L, Building No. 3, Lamington Road,
Mumbai-400008.
2. Indian Airlines Ltd,
NTB, Mumbai -400 029.
V/s.
The General Secretary,
Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh,
25, Ibrahim Mansion,
Parel, Mumbai-400 012.
Appearances:
For the first party Management No.2
:Mr. L.D‘souza(Adv) and Ms. Deepika Agarwal(Adv.)
For the first party Management No.1:Absent
For the Second Party Union
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 23rd day of December, 2025.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-11012/62/2001 (R(C-I)
dated 18/09/2003 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“क्याम्बइमजूररसंघकीमॉगकीसरचीमेंदूएगए18कममकारोंकोमैससमदिवेविएदवएशनसदवमसेजद्वारादनकािेजानेकीदिदिसेपर्मदपछिेवेिनसदहिसेवामेंप्न
स्िादपिदकयाजायेििाईहेंआंद यनएऄरिांआसदिदम े कादनयदमिकममकारमानाजायेईदचिएवंयायसंगिहै?यदूहांिोसंबदििकममकारदकसराहिकेपािहैंििा
दकसराहिकेपािहैंििादकसिारीखसे”?
In view of the above said facts the management has not field any evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in spite
of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the
case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial Court setting out 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 produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
3368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the
workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
From the perusal of records, it transpires that from the last so many dates in spite of the Notice, none appeared on
behalf of Livewell Aviation Services/Management No.1, and Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh,/Second Party Union.
Today again, none appeared on behalf of the Management No.1 and Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh. Ms. Deepika
Agarwal, Learned Lawyer for the Management No.2, appeared and she prayed that the matter be dismissed for
want of prosecution as the Union is not interested in pursuing legal remedy.
Since the Union and Management No.1 is not appeared in the case the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 670.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इंजडया एयरलाइंस जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] मुंबई-1,ds iapkV (
1/55/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y – 11012/55/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/55/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. India Airlines Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-11012/55/2001– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,
MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-55 of 2003
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
3. M/s. Livewell Aviation Services
Navjivan Society, 12th Floor,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3369
6L, Building No. 3, Lamington Road,
Mumbai-400008.
4. Indian Airlines Ltd,
NTB, Mumbai -400 029.
V/s.
The General Secretary,
Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh,
25, Ibrahim Mansion,
Parel, Mumbai-400 012.
Appearances:
For the first party Management No.2
:Mr. L.D‘souza(Adv) and Ms. Deepika Agarwal(Adv.)
For the first party Management No.1:Absent
For the Second Party Union
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 23rd day of December, 2025.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-11012/55/2001 (R(C-I)
dated 18/09/2003 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
““क्याम्बइमजूररसंघकीमॉगकीसरचीमेंदूएगए13कममकारोंकोमैससमदिवेविएदवएशनसदवमसेजद्वारादनकािेजानेकीदिदिसेपर्मदपछिेवेिनसदहिसेवामेंप्न
स्िादपिदकयाजायेििाईहेंआंद यनएऄरिांआसदिदम े कादनयदमिकममकारमानाजायेईदचिएवंयायसंगिहै?यदूहांिोसंबदििकममकारदकसराहिकेपािहैंििा
दकसराहिकेपािहैंििादकसिारीखसे”?
In view of the above said facts the management has not field any evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in spite
of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the
case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial Court setting out 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 produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the
workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
From the perusal of records, it transpires that from the last so many dates in spite of the Notice, none appeared on
behalf of Livewell Aviation Services/Management No.1, and Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh,/Second Party Union.
Today again, none appeared on behalf of the Management No.1 and Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh. Ms. Deepika
Agarwal, Learned Lawyer for the Management No.2, appeared and she prayed that the matter be dismissed for
want of prosecution as the Union is not interested in pursuing legal remedy.
Since the Union and Management No.1 is not appeared in the case the claim is liable to be dismissed.
3370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 671.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn
esa
-सह-
]
-1,ds
iapkV
(
33/2011) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22011/24/2011- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Food Corporation of India and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22011/24/2011– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 33 of 2011
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Food Corporation of India
V/s.
Their Workman(G.V. Kamble)
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Ms Geeta Raju (Adv.)
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 05th day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-22011/24/2011-IR(CM-
II) dated 13.10.2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section(1) sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether the action of Food corporation of India management through FHPL in refusing to reimburse the
medical bill balance of amount of Rs. 97,677/- to Shi G.V. Kamble is proper and justified? To what relief Shri
K.V. Kamble is entitled to?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not filed any evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in
spite of notice served to the workman and several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as
laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR
194 as under:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3371
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial Court setting out 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 produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the
workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal
of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent.
In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Since no evidence has been filed by the workman in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 672.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृवन िंस िेलीकॉप्टर संघ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] -1,ds iapkV (
32/2004) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –11012/9/2004- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2026
S.O. 672.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Pawan Hans helicopters union. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-11012/9/2004– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT NO.1,
MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
PRESIDING OFFICER
REFERENCE CGIT NO. 32 of 2004
PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS
V/S.
INDIAN AIRPORT EMPLOYEES’ UNION
3372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCE:-
FOR THE MANAGEMENT
: MS. Geeta Raju(Adv.)
FOR THE UNION
: G.S. Naik(Adv.)
Mumbai, dated 3/2/2026
AWARD
The present reference was made by the Central Government vide Order No. L-11012/9/2004-IR(C-
I) dated 26.04.2004, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Section 10(1) read with sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The terms of reference, as per the Schedule to the said order, are as under:
“Whether the demand of the Indian Airport Employees Union from the management of Pawan Hans
Helicopters Limited that Shri D. S. Manjerekar and 30 other contract workers listed be considered as
direct workers of the said management and be given all benefits equivalent to regular workers,
including benefits arising out of the settlement dated 30.10.2002, is fair and justified? If yes, to what
relief are the said workers entitled and from what date?”
During the pendency of the reference, the Union / Second Party filed an application seeking withdrawal of the
reference, stating that the concerned workmen have consented to the withdrawal. The details of the consenting
employees, retired employees, and deceased employees have been placed on record.
The learned representative for the Management appeared and expressly stated that the Management has ―no
objection‖ to the withdrawal of the present reference.
In view of the voluntary withdrawal sought by the Union, the consent of the concerned workmen, and the no-
objection given by the Management, this Hon‘ble Tribunal is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by
continuing with the adjudication of the reference.
ORDER
The reference made by the Central Government vide Order No. L-11012/9/2004-IR(C-I) dated 26.04.2004 is hereby
disposed of as withdrawn / not pressed.
Accordingly, the reference stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
No order as to costs.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 673.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सि–
] आसनसोल dsiapkV(संिभव संक्या-05/2022
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y–22012/20/2022- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference./05/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22012/20/2022– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3373
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 OF 2022
PARTIES: Mangal Marandi
(dependent son of Late Nabin Marandi)
Vs.
Management of Bonjemihary Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Chandi Banerjee, General Secretary, CMU
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
COAL
STATE:
WEST BENGAL
Dated:
22.01.2026
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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/20/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 24.02.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Bonjemihary Colliery under Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Bonjemihari
Colliery (under Salanpur Area) in refusing / denying the Employment claim of Shri Mangal Marandi, dependent son
of Late Nabin Marandi, Ex-Fitter, UM No. 157615, is just and legal? If not, to what relief Shri Mangal Marandi is
entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/20/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 24.02.2022 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on
14.03.2022/01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing
them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
General Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor Union (INTUC), representing the dependent son of Nabin Marandi
submitted written statement on 16.08.2022. In brief, the fact giving rise to this Industrial Dispute is that Nabin
Marandi was posted as Fitter at Bonjemihary Colliery, under Salanpur Aea of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter
referred to as ECL). He died in harness on 31.10.2007, leaving behind Kolodi Marandi, his wife, Mangal Marandi, his
son and one daughter. After the death of the employee, Kolodi Marandi claimed for employment against the death of
her husband. After her proposal was turned down, she requested the management to keep the name of Mangal
Marandi, her dependent son in the Live Roster and for payment of Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation
(hereinafter referred to as MMCC) to her. Management claimed that as per Service Record of Nabin Marandi, the age
of Mangal Marandi was 11 years at the time of death of the employee. In the written statement of the union, it is
claimed that the assessment of age of Mangal Marandi was not done according to the medical jurisprudence. Initial
Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME) of Mangal Marandi was conducted on 11.06.2010 where his
age was assessed between 13 and 16 years. According to the management the age of the dependent son was 11 years,
10 months and 19 days on the date of death of his father. As he was under age, management did not maintain his
name in the Live Roster of the company. Union claimed that according to the Birth Registration Certificate of Mangal
Marandi, issued by the Government of West Bengal, his date of birth is 17.04.1995. In the School Admission
Register the date of birth of Mangal Marandi is recorded as 17.04.1995 ad in the Admit Card issued by the West
Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as WBBSE) the date of birth of the dependent son was
also recorded as 17.04.1995. The IME did not take into consideration the statutory certificate and did not inform the
result of the assessment of age of Mangal Marandi, as such no appeal could be preferred against determination of age
3374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the dependent through the Apex Medical Board of the company. This Industrial Dispute has been raised on behalf
of the dependent son of the deceased employee claiming employment as per provisions of National Coal Wage
Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA).
3.
Management contested the case by filing written statement on 22.03.2023. The specific case of the
management is that after death of Nabin Marandi his wife Kolodi Marandi claimed employment but the same was
turned down on the ground that she had crossed the upper age limit. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased employee
requested the management to keep the name of the Mangal Marandi in the Live Roster of the company as he was a
minor at the time of death of his father. The employer company stated that the age of the dependent should be above
12 years on the date of death of the employee for inclusion of the name of minor in the Live Roster. It is further stated
that as per Form PS-3, the form related to family particulars of the employee, the age of Mangal Marandi at the time
of death of his father was 11 years. On 11.06.2010 his age was assessed between 13 and 16 years and the age of the
dependent son was computed as 11 years 10 months and 19 days on the date of death of his father. Management
asserted that according to the rules of the company any party aggrieved with the decision of the IME Board could
prefer an appeal within one month for further assessment by the Apex Medical Board. In the instant case no appeal
was preferred against the findings of the IME Board as such the management regretted employee of the dependent
and the name of Mangal Marandi was not maintained in the Live Roster. Further case of the management is that
compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the case cannot be reconsidered after long
lapse of time. The management further urged that MMCC was offered to the wife of the deceased employee in lieu of
employment. It is contended that the management has rightly rejected the prayer for employment of Mangal Marandi
as the terms for providing employment have to be strictly followed. Before conclusion, the management denied that it
did not consider the document produced by the claimant for employment on compassionate ground and urged that the
management is fully justified in refusing the employment.
4.
The issue which arose for consideration is whether the action of the management in refusing
employment to Mangal Marandi is just and legal? If not, to what relief Mangal Marandi is entitled to.
5.
Union has examined Mangal Marandi as Workman Witness No. 1. He has filed an affidavit-in-chief wherein
he stated that he submitted his Birth Certificate and School Certificate where his date of birth has been recorded. The
witness further averred that no information has been given to him regarding the age assessed by IME Board and it was
not possible for him to appeal or apply for holding assessment by Apex Medical Board. The witness stated that he has
already crossed the age of 18 years and claimed employment as a dependent. In course of evidence following
documents is produced by WW-1:
(i)
Copy of the Death Registration Certificate of Nabin Marandi is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of Birth Registration Certificate of Mangal Marandi is produced as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Service Record Excerpt of Nabin Marandi is admitted as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of the Note Sheet dated 02.01.2018 issued by the Dy. Manager (P), Bonjemihary Colliery, as
Exhibit W-4.
6.
In course of cross-examination the witness deposed that he has filed his Registration Certificate, Admit Card,
and Mark Sheet issued by WBBSE. Copy of the same have been produced as Exhibit W-5, W-6, and W-7
respectively. Copy of IME declaration has been filed as Exhibit W-8 and M-2 and copy of the IME Report of Mangal
Marandi is produced as Exhibit M-1. Witness claimed that at the time of death of his father he was more than 12 years
of age. He denied the suggestion of the ECL management that at the time of death of his father he was less than 12
years of age.
7.
Mr. Amitava Chakraborty, Manager (Personnel), Bonjemihary Colliery has been examined as Management
Witness No. 1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief and stated that as per Form PS-3 the age of Mangal Marandi at the time
of death of his father was 11 years. During IME of Mangal Marandi on 11.06.2010 his age was assessed between 13
and 16 years and on the basis of such assessment the age of the dependent son is 11 years 10 months and 19 days on
the date of death of his father. The management witness stated that the time limit for preferring an appeal against the
findings of IME Board is one month and after lapse of such time no Apex Medical Board could consider any dispute
regarding age. As the age of Mangal Marandi was less than 12 years, the management regretted his claim for
maintaining his name in the Live Roster. Further assertion of the management is that compassionate employment
cannot be claimed as a matter of right after long time has passed. Management claimed that MMCC was offered to
the widow in lieu of employment but Kolodi Marandi did not accept the same. In course of evidence management
witness produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the IME declaration of Mangal Marandi has been produced as Exhibit M-1/1.
(ii)
Copy of the IME Report of Mangal Marandi, as Exhibit M-2/1.
(iii)
Copy of Birth Registration Certificate of Mangal Marandi, as Exhibit M-3.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3375
8.
In course of cross-examination the management witness deposed that in Note Sheet dated 02.01.2018
(Exhibit W-4) the Agent and Dy. Manager (P) of Bonjemihary Colliery, in Point No. 3 mentioned that the age of
Mangal Marandi at the time of death of his father was 12 years 6 months and 14 days, as per Birth Certificate and 11
years 5 months, as per Form PS-3. The witness also admitted that in Exhibit M-1 i.e., IME Report it considered the
date of birth of Mangal Marandi as 17.04.1995 which implies that he was more than 12 years of age on 31.10.2007.
The witness however denied that the dependent son is eligible for employment as per provisions of NCWA.
9.
Mr. Chandi Banerjee, union representative advancing his argument on behalf of the dependent son submitted
that at the time of age assessment by the IME Board the candidate, Mangal Marandi disclosed his date of birth as
17.04.1995, as per his Birth Registration Certificate. A copy of the Brith Registration Certificate issued by the
Government of West Bengal under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 has been admitted as Exhibit W-2.
Mr. Banerjee urged that according to the age of Mangal Marandi recorded in the Registration Certificate as well as
Admit Card issued by WBBSE (Exhibit W-5 and W-6 respectively) it would appear that his date of birth has been
consistently recorded as 17th day of April, 1995. Therefore, the management should have taken into consideration the
date of birth of Mangal Marandi, appearing in the statutory documents as 17.04.1995, which will prevail over the age
assessed by the IME Board, based upon approximation and not real. Mr. Banerjee argued that dependent son who was
above 12 years of age in October 2007 is entitled to employment on the basis of the right subsisting in his favour
under the provisions of NCWA. It is urged that the management should have treated the date of birth of the candidate
appearing in the Birth Registration Certificate, and Admit Card of Madhyamik Examination as his actual date of birth.
10.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate in reply argued that the death of Nabin Marandi took place in the year 2007
when his son Mangal Marandi was below 12 years of age. After considering the prayer for maintaining the name of
the dependent son in the Live Roster he was examined by the IME Board where his age was assessed as 13 to 16
years and by implication the dependent son was 11 years 10 months and 19 days on the date of death of his father.
Therefore, he was not eligible for his name to be maintained in the Live Roster as per provisions of NCWA. It is
urged that management has committed no illegality by not granting employment to Mangal Marandi and the Industrial
Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
11.
I have considered the argument advanced on behalf of the management and union in the light of facts
disclosed in their pleadings and evidence adduced. The admitted facts in this case are that Nabin Marandi was an
employee of ECL and he died in harness on 31.10.2007. The dependent wife Kolodi Marandi was not provided with
employment on the ground that she had exceeded the upper age limit. It also transpires from the written statement of
the management that Kolodi Marandi requested the employer company to maintain the name of her son Mangal
Marandi in the Live Roster. In this case union has produced a copy of Birth Registration Certificate of the dependent
son as Exhibit W-2. It appears from the Birth Registration Certificate issued under the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 that the date of birth of Mangal Marandi is 17.04.1995. The certificate was issued from Kulti
Municipality on 31.12.2002 i.e., prior to the death of Nabin Marandi and at the relevant time no question cropped up
for providing employment to the dependent son in December 2002. No objection has been raised by the management
at the time of admission of the document in evidence. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the date of birth of
Mangal Marandi recorded as 17.04.1995 is genuine. The Service Record Excerpt of Nabin Marandi (Exhibit W-3)
was prepared in the year 1987. Therefore, it is obvious that the name of Mangal Marandi did not appear in that
document as he was born in the year 1995. Management of ECL has claimed that as per the contents of Form PS-3,
regarding family particulars of deceased employee, age of Mangal Marandi was computed as 11 years at the time of
death of his father. It may be noted herein that the management has not produced Form PS-3 for consideration of this
Tribunal and therefore the management of ECL cannot be permitted to rely upon the entries in Form PS-3 for
determining the age of Mangal Marandi. In the absence of such a document no reliance can be placed upon entries
made in such documents to hold that on the date of death of Nabin Marandi his minor son was 11 years of age.
12.
On the basis of the prayer made by the widow of the deceased an IME was held on 11.06.2010. It may be
gathered from the application form filled up for the purpose of medical examination, which is produced as Exhibit W-
8/M-2, that the date of birth of the dependent son was recorded as 17.04.1995. The IME Boad instead of considering
the statutory document, which is going to represent the date of birth of Mangal Marandi in his future life for rest of
the time, assess the age based upon his appearance which is not tenable. It appears from the report of IME (Exhibit
M-1), that the Board members did not follow any scientific procedure or examination for the purpose of determining
the age. The Board recorded the age of the person as 15 years as stated by the candidate and assessed the age of the
person as 13 to 16 years on the basis of his appearance. If the recorded date of birth in the Birth Registration
Certificate is presumed to be true then the age disclosed by Mangal Marandi before the IME Board is consistent and
correct. The Admit Card issued by WBBSE in favour of Mangal Marandi also bears the same date of birth which is
17.04.1995. therefore, the age recorded by the IME Board on the basis of appearance of a person does not have any
scientific or legal basis and cannot have any application for the purpose of discarding his name from the Live Roster.
13.
Management claimed that no appeal was preferred by the family of the deceased employee against the age
assessed by IME Board within 1 month from the date of holding IME. There is no trace of evidence in this case to
establish that the management had communicated the outcome of IME to the family of the deceased employee within
one month from the date of such assessment made by them on 11.06.2010.
3376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
From the aforesaid discussion and the evidence adduced by the parties in this case, it is abundantly clear that
the management of employer company has deliberately delayed in finalizing the claim for employment of the
dependent son
on the basis of valid and legal evidence which tilts in favour of dependent son. According to the provisions of Clause
9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA-VIII, if the dependent son is above the age of 12 years on the date of death of employee, then his
name will be kept in the Live Roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and
qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. In the present case as per the date of birth available in the Birth
Registration Certificate issued by a public office Mangal Marandi was 12 years, 6 months, 14 days at the time of
death of his father. Therefore, he was above 12 years of age and accordingly was entitled to be maintained in the Live
Roster for his employment as per terms of settlement, binding the employer company and its employees through
NCWA. I therefore, hold that Mangal Marandi is entitled to employment as a dependent of Nabin Marandi. Erroneous
decision of the management has already delayed the employment procedure and it cannot be allowed to derive any
benefit for their own acts.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of Bonjemihary Colliery under
Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to reconsider the
claim for employment of Mangal Marandi as per the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of National Coal Wage
Agreement - VIII, treating 17.04.1995 as his date of birth, reflected in the Birth Registration Certificate. The
procedure for employment must be completed within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award.
Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry
of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 674.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सि–
] आसनसोल
ds iapkV (संिभव संक्या-58/2022+) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22012/103/2022- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference./58/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22012/103/2022– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 58 OF 2022
PARTIES: Arjun Kuswaha
Vs.
Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery 1 & 2 Incline, ECL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3377
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Shabe Alam, union representative.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
COAL
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
21.01.2026
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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/103/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 07.12.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of 1 & 2 Incline, Jhanjra Project Colliery under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Jhanjra Project Colliery 1 & 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area, M/s.
E.C.Ltd. not fixation the pay properly in the regularized post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer to Sri Arjun
Kuswaha is justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/103/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 07.12.2022 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 08.12.2022 and an
order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Arjun Kuswaha, the aggrieved workman filed written statement through Mr. Bipul Banerjee, learned
advocate on 18.04.2023. A brief profile of the workman‘s case is that he is a permanent employee of Eastern
Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) and was initially posted as SDL Operator. After passing the
Mining Sirdarship course examination he was posted as Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer (Trainee) for a period of six
months vide letter No. GM/JNR/PERS/2014/1234 dated 10/11.11.2014. On successful completion of the Training
period the workman was regularized to the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer vide letter No.
GM/JNR/PERS/2015/1094 dated 30/31.10.2015 but the pay which was fixed after his posting as Mining Sirdar -cum-
Shot Firer in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ was less than the wages he was receiving as SDL Operator during
the training period. According to the workman his Basic Pay as SDL Operator was Rs.52,536.30/- per month but
while fixing his pay in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ his Basic Pay was reduced to Rs.51,006.12/- per month. It
is contended that while fixing his pay the management of employer company did not consider the difference in Basic
Pay. Several representations were made by the workman for restoration of Basic Pay to Rs.52,536.30/- per month
with retrospective effect but the management denied his legitimate claim. It is the case of the workman that the
management has acted in an illegal and unjust manner by not fixing his pay properly and he is entitled to a Basic Pay
of Rs.52,536.30/- per month, from the time of his regularization in the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer.
3.
Management of ECL contested the case by filing their written statement on 18.04.2023. The counter case of
the management is that the management granted pay protection to the workman as per rules and no illegality has been
committed in the matter of fixation of pay. It is asserted that the management is totally justified in fixing the pay of
workman in the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ as per guidelines of the
company.
4.
The point for consideration is whether the action of the management in fixing the pay of the workman on
regularization to the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer is legal and justified. If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to.
5.
In order to establish his case, the workman examined himself as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed an
affidavit-in-chief reiterating the facts of the case discharged in written statement. In course of his examination the
workman has produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of order dated 10/11.11.2014, whereby Arjun Kuswaha was asked to report to the Agent,
Jhanjra Project Colliery for assignment of duty after completing Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer
training, has been produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of Charge Assumption Report dated 31.12.2014 of Arjun Kuswaha for reporting as Mining
Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of Office Order dated 30/31.10.2015 issued by the Area Personnel Manager, Jhanjra Area,
whereby it was ordered that new Basic Pay would be fixed as per norms of the company and that
Arjun Kuswaha was regularized in the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer w.e.f. 25.05.2015, as
Exhibit W-3.
3378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iv)
Copy of Pay Slips of September, 2015 and October, 2015, where Basic Pay of Arjun Kuswaha was
Rs.23,361.26/- and Rs 24,259.77/- respectively, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of Pay Slip of November, 2015 and December, 2015, where Basic Pay of Arjun Kuswaha was
Rs.21,492.36/- and Rs.22,279.72/- respectively, as Exhibit W-5.
It transpires from the evidence that he was regularized in the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in October, 2015.
After completion of training period of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer he was asked to report before the Agent,
Jhanjra Project Colliery for assignment of duty and assumed charge as Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer on 31.12.2014.
Copies of Pay slip of September, 2015 and October, 2015 have been produced which show that his Basic Pay was
Rs.23,361.26/- and Rs.24,259.77/- respectively. Copies of Pay Slips of November, 2015 and December,
2015 have been admitted in the evidence as Exhibit W-5. It appears from the document that the Basic pay in the
month of November, 2015 and December, 2015, was reduced to Rs.21,492.36/- and Rs.22,279.72/- respectively.
6.
In cross-examination it was suggested on behalf of the management that the workman was not entitled to any
higher pay after his regularization to a higher post than a General Mazdoor, which the witness denied.
7.
Management examined Mr. Alaric Oneal Lyndem as Management Witness No. 1. He has filed an affidavit-
in-chief where he stated that after successful completion of training period of six months, Arjun Kuswaha was
regularized as a Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ as per guidelines of the
company and his Pay was fixed in monthly rated category. The management however denied that the fixation of pay
of the concerned workman in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ was done in an illegal manner. The witness stated
that the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ is an entry level mining
supervisory post which is done through selection and not by promotion and his Basic was not affected when he was
converted from daily rated to monthly rated employee. The witness during his examination produced the following
documents :
(i)
Copy of order dated 10/11.11.2014, whereby Arjun Kuswaha was asked to report to the Agent,
Jhanjra Project Colliery for assignment of duty after completing Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer
training has been produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of Office Order dated 30/31.10.2015 issued by the Area Personnel Manager, Jhanjra Area,
whereby it was ordered that new Basic would be fixed as per norms of the company and that Arjun
Kuswaha was regularized in the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer w.e.f. 25.05.2015, as
Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Guidelines for promotion dated 04.10.2012, as Exhibit M-3.
In his evidence the management witness failed to produce the order of pay fixation in respect of Arjun Kuswaha. He
admitted that in his affidavit-in-chief that the statement prepared by the System Officer does not bear any reference
number nor any seal or signature of the authority. Witness deposed that while the workman was posted as SDL
Operator, his Basic Pay was Rs.23,361.26/-. The witness further stated that the claim of the workman that he has not
been paid proper wages is incorrect. He also deposed that the annual increment of the workman is three percent (3%)
of his Basic.
8.
In course of cross-examination the management witness deposed that at the time of posting as Mining Sirdar
-cum- Shot Firer the Basic Pay of Arjun Kuswaha in the post of SDL Operator had already surpassed the minimum
Basic Pay of a Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘. It may be gathered from the
evidence of witness that minimum Basic Pay of Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ is Rs.19,035.02/- per month.
According to the management Arjun Kuswaha was not promoted but was regularized to the new post. The witness
denied that after regularization of Arjun Kuswaha as Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer his pay was reduced at the rate
of one percent (1%) of Basic.
9.
Mr. Shabe Alam, union representative argued that Arjun Kuswaha completed the Mining Sirdarship course
and underwent training for six months. During the period of his training for six months, he received difference of his
Basic but on completion of his training he was regularized in the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in Technical
and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ w.e.f. 25.05.2015 through Office Order 30/31.10.2015 (Exhibit W-3). It was provided that
the new Basic would be fixed as per norms of the company by the Associated Finance. The management of the
employer company however did not fix the pay in proper manner. It is argued that as per Implementation Instructions
No. 23 and decision taken in the Standardization Meeting dated 23.01.1980, when an employee of a lower category
temporarily works in the place of a higher category workman he should be paid an officiating allowance of ten
percent (10%) of his total wages or the statutory pay of the higher category worker for whom he deputizes, whichever
is higher and where an employee in a lower category works in the place of a workman of higher category, he should
be entitled to payment of officiating allowance which shall be the difference between his wage and the minimum of
the higher category, if such minimum is higher than his existing pay. In case, by this method of adjustment, he gets
less than one increment in the officiating scale, he should be given one increment in that scale. In the event of the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3379
existing pay of the officiating workman being higher than the minimum of the scale of pay of the higher category in
which he works, then his existing pay should be adjusted into the next higher step in the higher category's scale and he
should be given one increment in that scale. Mr. Alam argued that the workman was a daily wager receiving
Rs.898.51/- per day and on working for twenty-six (26) days his Basic Pay reached Rs.23,361.26/- per month. After
the workman was regularized to the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer w.e.f. 25.05.2015 his Basic Pay was fixed
by multiplying his daily wages by number of working days. Referring to Exhibit W-4, which is a Pay Slip for the
month of September, 2015 it is argued that the pay of workman was simply converted from daily rate to monthly rate
after his regularization to a higher category and he did not receive the amount which he was receiving during his
training period as difference of wages. Union representative argued that on regularization the workman is also entitled
to an increment of three percent (3%) of Basic Pay as on 25.05.2015.
10.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate argued that by Office Order dated 30/31.10.2015 (Exhibit W-3/M-2)
Arjun Kuswaha, SDL Operator, U. M. No. 122213 of 1 and 2 Incline, Jhanjra Project Colliery, having successfully
completed the training on 24.05.2015 has been regularized in the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in Technical
and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘ but the same is not to be considered as promotion and he was only entitled to the initial
Basic of a Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer. It is submitted that the Industrial Dispute has no merit and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
11.
I have considered the rival arguments in the light of the fact and circumstances of the case disclosed in the
pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. It is admitted that the workman was regularized to the post of Mining
Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer as per Office Order dated 30/31.10.2015 (Exhibit W-3/M-2). From the Pay slip of September,
2015 (Exhibit W-4) it appears that the Basic Pay of the workman was Rs.23,361.26/- on computing and consolidating
the daily wages of Rs.898.51/- per day. After completion of the training period and regularization, the Pay of the
workman was required to be fixed as a monthly rated worker. On perusal of Exhibit W-5, a Pay Slip of December,
2015 it appears that the Basic Pay was fixed as Rs.22,279.72/- which is less than the Basic Pay of Rs.23,361.26/-
which was being received by the workman before his regularization. From the averment of Management Witness No.
1, it is gathered that the management is not inclined to grant any increment in the Basic Pay of the workman on his
regularization to a higher post. On regularization of a workman in a higher post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer, the
Basic Pay appears to be less than the Pay received by him in the lower category of SDL Operator. Therefore,
according to the recommendation of the Standardization Meeting dated 23.01.1980, Arjun Kuswaha, the workman
would be entitled to a Basic Pay with increment of three percent (3%) in the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer.
Management of ECL is therefore required to pay one increment of three percent (3%) of minimum of the scale of pay
of the higher category i.e., the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘, in
which the workman was regularized from 25.05.2015. I therefore, hold that the management of ECL had failed to fix
the pay of Arjun Kuswaha in proper manner. Management of ECL is directed to fix the Basic Pay of the concerned
workman w.e.f. the day of his regularization i.e., 25.05.2015 and also pay his arrears of Basic Pay and Dearness
Allowance within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of 1 & 2 Incline, Jhanjra Project
Colliery under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to
fix the Basic Pay of Arjun Kuswaha by granting him one increment of three percent (3%) of minimum Basic Pay of
the higher category i.e., the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‗C‘, in which
the workman was regularized from 25.05.2015. Arrears of Pay and Allowance be disbursed to the workman within
two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above
findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for
information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 675.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सि–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV(संिभव संक्या-14/2013
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22012/122/2013- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
3380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference./ 14/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22012/122/2013– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-Cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 14 OF 2013
PARTIES:
Tapan Hari
(Represented by President Bhratiya Mazdoor Sangh
-VS-
Management of Nageshwar Satgram Colliery, E.C.Ltd.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Represented for the workman
: Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, advocate
For the management of E.C.Ltd. : Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
COAL
STATE :
WEST BENGAL
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 (14th of 1947), the Government of India by issuing order No. L-22012/122/2013–
(IR)(CM-II) dated 18.09.2013 has referred the schedule dispute between the employer i.e. the management of
Nageshwar Satgram Colliery, ECL(herein after referred as ECL) and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management not to consider the application dated 27.12.2010 of Shri Tapan Hari
for re-instatement as per Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007 as on the date of the application he
was around 42 years and dismissed him on the ground of absenteeism, is fair and proportionate punishment.
If not, so what relief management can provide to the workman?‖.
1.
On receiving order No. L-22012/122/2013–(IR)(CM-II) dated 18.09.2013 this reference case No.14 of 2013
was registered on 14.02.2024 and an order passed to issuing notice to the parties through registered post for
appearance and filing written statement along with list of documents.
2.
Mr. Niren Chandra Das, Organizing Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Republican Sabha (BMM) filed written
statement on behalf of Tapan Hari on 02.08.2014. The fact in brief is that Tapan Hari was appointed as a General
Mazdoor on 18.10.1987 at Nageshwar Satgram Colliery, ECL and rendered service while residing at the quarters of
ECL, which was declared abandoned by the management. The workman suffered neurological problems and was
under the treatment of doctor since 03.08.1990. Due to his absence from duty management refused to re-instate him
and dismissed him from service w.e.f. 30.03.1992. The workman learnt that he was charge-sheeted on 11.02.1992 for
unauthorized absence. The charge-sheet was not handed over to employee. He was completely in dark about any
domestic enquiry held by the management in respect of such charge-sheet.
3.
Workman contended that no notice of enquiry was served upon him before holding ex-parte domestic
enquiry. The workman had no opportunity to defend his case. The union applied for re-instatement of the workman
on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement reached which disclosed that if the workman was below the age of 45
years and absented for less than 9 (nine) months, management would re-instate the workman in his service. It is
claimed that the management issued a charge-sheet on 11.02.1992 but in the written statement it is disclosed that the
workman remained absent from duty from 04.08.1990 to 12.03.1992. According to the workman his dismissal was
illegal and the management should be directed to re-instate the workman in his service with payment of back wages.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3381
4.
Management has not filed any written statement in this case. Initially the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing
on 07.10.2015. At a later stage, Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the management without filing any
Vokalatnama.
5.
The moot point for consideration in this case is whether the action of the management in not considering the
application dated 27.12.2010 submitted by Tapan Hari for his re-instatement as per Memorandum of Settlement dated
22.05.2007 is legal and the punishment of dismissal on the ground of absenteeism is fair and proportionate.
6.
Tapan Hari adduced evidence by filing affidavit. In his cross-examination by the management, the workman
witness No.1(Tapan Hari) deposed that he does not remember his date of birth but he was born in the year 1968. He
further deposed that his service particulars are entered in the ‗B‘ Form Register of ECL. He has no document to
prove his date of birth. The witness admitted that he was absent from duty for nearly 6(six) years and had no reason
for his absence. The witness further deposed that he did not attend duty on his own desire and wish. A departmental
proceeding was started and he was dismissed. The witness was re-examined or re-called and he produced a copy of
application dated 27.12.2010 (marked as Exhibit W-1) where he prayed for re-instatement as per the Terms of
Memorandum of Settlement. Witness failed to produce any document in support of his absence for nearly 2(two)
years as mentioned in the charge-sheet and also did not submit any application before the management of the
company praying for re-instatement.
7.
Management without filing Vokalatnama as well as written statement, has adduced evidence through Mr.
Sanjib Kumar Ghosh as management witness. The statements made by the management witness on affidavit is
considered for ends of justice. The witness stated in affidavit that workman was absent from 04.08.1990 and charge-
sheet was issued to him on 11.02.1992 for his unauthorized absence without any sanctioned leave or prior permission
from the management. The management witness deposed that the charge-sheet was sent to his home address but the
Ex-workman failed to submit any satisfactory reply for which domestic enquiry was started. Notice of enquiry was
issued and ex-parte enquiry was held. On the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer the workman was found guilty
of the charge and the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from service on 30.03.1992.
Management witness at the time of adducing evidence produced the following documents.
1. Copy of charge-sheet dated 11.02.1992is produced as Exhibit M-1.
2. Copy of notice for Domestic Enquiry to Tapan Hari as Exhibit M-2.
3. Copy of letter appointing Enquiry Officer for domestic enquiry as Exhibit M-3.
4. Copy of enquiry proceedings in 4 (four) pages is marked as Exhibit M-4.
5. Copy of findings of Enquiry Officer as Exhibit M-5.
6. Copy of the order of dismissal of the workman as Exhibit M-6.
7. Copy of the order of dismissal communicated to the workman as Exhibit M-7.
8.
Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the union argued that the only contention of the
union is that the concerned workman has been dismissed from his service under ECL without any information about
holding departmental proceeding and no notice was served. It is argued that after dismissal of the workman on the
basis of ex-parte proceedings, the workman made a representation before the management on 27.12.2010 which is
produced as Exhibit W-1 but management did not consider his application for re-instatement in service in Terms of
Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007.
9.
Learned advocate for the union argued that as per Terms of Settlement dated 22.05.2007 a dismissed
workman who is below the age of 45 years and have remained absent for less than 9 (nine) months is entitled to be re-
instated in a service to ECL.
10.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management in reply argued that the workman was a habitual
absentee and he remained absent for more than one year without any authorization or information to the employer
company. Furthermore, the workman made no representation before the management for his re-instatement for re-
consideration after the order of dismissal was passed against him on 30.03.1992 (Exhibit M-6). After eighteen years
the workman filed an application for reinstatement.
11.
I have considered the rival arguments advanced by learned advocates for the union and the management.
From the evidence on record, I find that Tapan Hari was absent from his duty on 04.08.1990 and charge-sheet was
issued on 11.02.1992. The period of unauthorized absence of the workman was for one year and 6(six) months till the
issuance of charge-sheet. The workman in his evidence in-chief however admitted that he was absent from duty for
nearly 6 (six) years. No cogent reason has been assigned for his absence from duty. I find from the record that before
initiating the domestic enquiry notice of enquiry was issued to the workman (Exhibit M-2). A departmental enquiry
was held by Sri A. Ghosh, Dy. Personnel Manager, Benalee Colliery and the enquiry proceedings has been produced
3382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as Exhibit M-4. The Report of Enquiry in original has been produced as Exhibit M-5. The report revealed that the
charge of unauthorized absence under Clause 17(i)(n) of the Model Standing Order has been well established against
the workman and he was punished by way of dismissal from service. I find no illegality in the act of dismissing an
employee who remains absent for a long period.
12.
According to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007 management of ECL agreed to re-
instate those employees who were dismissed for the reason of absenting for a period below nine months and were
below 45 years of age and also agreed that such cases would be considered on merit basis. In the present case the
workman has not fulfilled the require conditions enshrined in point No.7 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
22.05.2007. He was admittedly absent for more than nine months without information. Therefore, he did not fulfill
the condition in the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007, for his re-instatement in service. Accordingly,
there is no merit in the case and the workman is not entitled in any relief.
Hence,
ORDER
The Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. The workman is not entitled to any relief. The
management has committed no illegality by not considering his application dated 27.12.2010 for re-instatement as he
did not fulfill one of the conditions for being considered. Let an award be drawn up on the basis of my above
findings.
Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry for information and notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 676.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV(स स 15/2008
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22012/369/2007- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 15/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22012/369/2007– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-Cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 15 OF 2008
PARTIES:
Ranjit Kr. Banerjee and 8 others
(Represented by West Bengal Khan Mazdoor Sangh (UTUC)
-VS-
Management of Neamatpur Central Workshop, ECL.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3383
REPRESENTATIVES:
Represented for the workman
: None appeared.
For the management of E.C.Ltd. : Mr. P. K. Goswami, advocate.
INDUSTRY:
COAL
STATE :
WEST BENGAL
DATED:
03.02.2026
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 (14th of 1947), the Government of India, Ministry of Labour issued order No.L-
22012/369/2007–(IR)(CM-II) dated 09.05.2008 has referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULED
―Whether the action of the management of Neamatpur Central Workshop of M/s. ECL in not promoting Shri
Ranjit Kr. Banerjee & 8 others (list enclosed) w.e.f. 01.01.2001 is legal and justified? To what relief are the
workmen concerned are entitled?‖
1.
On receiving order No. No. L-22012/369/2007–(IR)(CM-II) dated 09.05.2008 from the Ministry of Labour
reference case No.15 of 2008 was registered on 13.04.2009. Notice was issued to the parties for submitting written
statement.
2.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee filed a statement of claim on 26.05.2016, on behalf of all the workmen. It is
stated that 09(nine) workmen named in the reference are employees of Neamatpur Central Workshop of ECL and are
governed by terms of NCWA. The petitioners acquired required qualifications including I.T.I/N.C.V.T certificate are
eligible for promotion but management did not consider their representation for promotion. As per Implementation
Instruction No.32 dated 22.01.2002 the petitioners are eligible and entitled for promotion to the next higher grade
w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and they are entitled to the financial benefit from 01.01.2001. It is stated in II No.32 of NCWA that
existing I.T.I. personnel who have completed 03(three) years in the existing grade as on 31.12.1999 would be
notionally placed in the next higher category/grade w.e.f. 01.01.2000 but financial benefits will accrue w.e.f.
01.01.2001 and this will be personal to them as one time arrangement. The circular was issued for the purpose of
career growth of trade personnel of C.I.L. and circulated for discussion/meeting of the Standardization Committee of
J.B.C.C.I. The management neither implemented the circular nor provide any promotional benefits to the employees.
The petitioners claimed that they may be provided with promotion and granted related benefit in the next higher grade
with retrospective effect.
3.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate appeared for ECL for first time on 20.06.2012. On 22.01.2015 the
case was fixed up ex-parte hearing but no written statement was filed by management after 06(six) years‘ time.
4.
In this case Ranjit Kr. Banerjee in support of his claim filed affidavit-in-chief on behalf of 09(nine)
workmen. He reiterated his claim disclosed in the written statement. On cross-examination by management on
08.08.2016 witness deposed that promotion and upgradation was scheduled in the year 2001. The management
without filing any written statement examined Adesh Dayanand Badge as management witness. He stated that
promotional regularization of a workman depends upon existence of vacant post. It is further averred that workmen
claimed special privilege which cannot be treated beyond the rules. In his examination in chief the workman witness
produced documents like service register as (Exhibit M-1), appointment letter as (Exhibit M-2), Order dated
21/22.12.1998 as (Exhibit M-3), office order dated 13.01.1994 as (Exhibit M-5). The witness deposed that Ranjit
Kumar Banerjee was promoted as of Store Keeper Grade-I (Service Linked Upgradation) and the concerned employee
worked in the said post till 31.12.2008. It further appears from his evidence that Ranjit Kumar Banerjee was
promoted to the post of Store Keeper Grade-A on 01.01.2009 and on 01.08.2011 he was promoted to the post of Store
Keeper Special Grade. In course of the cross-examination by the witness by Ranjit Kumar Banerjee witness admitted
that promotion was not granted to Ranjit Kumar Banerjee on the basis of his I.T.I./N.C.V.T. certificate.
5.
On the date the case is fixed up during Special Campaign the management of ECL produced 03(three)
documents which are office order dated 23.08.2001, marked as (Exhibit M-6/1), Order dated 02.02.2009, is marked as
(Exhibit M-6) and another office order dated 01.08.2011 is marked as (Exhibit M-7). Mr. P. K. Goswami arguing the
case for management submitted that the workman was granted five promotions during course of his service and he
retired from the service of the company on 31.03.2013.
6.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned advocate for ECL as well as the evidence record together
with, office orders (Exhibit M-6/1 and 7). I hold that the workman has been promoted on several occasions according
to the necessity and vacancy of the employer company. The workman has already retired from service in the year
2013 and he is not entitled to any benefit. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of remaining 08(eight) workmen
who were included in the Industrial Dispute. Therefore, other workmen have failed to establish their claim against the
management. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly dismissed on contest.
3384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hence,
ORDER
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Ranjit Kr. Banerjee and 08 (eight) other employees in this
case are not entitled any relief. Let an award be drawn up in the light of my above discussion. Let copies of the
Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment for information and notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 677.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सि–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संिभव संक्या 50/2023
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22013/01/2026- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 50/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22013/01/2026– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 50 OF 2023
PARTIES: Panchu Kole
(dependent son of Late Sanichar Kole)
Vs.
Management of Jambad Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Adv.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, Adv.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3385
INDUSTRY:
COAL.
STATE:
WEST BENGAL.
DATED:
02.02.2026
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-Section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office
of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, vide its Order No. 1(41)/2023/E dated 23.11.2023 has
been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Jambad Colliery under
Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Jambad Colliery, Kajora Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd. in not providing
employment to Sri Panchu Kole is justified? If not, what relief the dependent Sri Panchu Kole son of Late
Sanichar Kole is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. 1(41)/2023/E dated 23.11.2023 from the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute a
Reference case was registered on 04.12.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through
registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support
of their claims.
2.
Panchu Kole filed written statement on 19.01.2024 in support of his claim for employment as dependent.
Fact of the case as disclosed in the written statement is that Sanichar Kole was employed as a Masson at Jambad
Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL), who died in harness on
18.11.1993. Panchu Kole, the dependent son of the deceased employee submitted an application on 06.03.1995,
claiming employment as a dependent. In the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007 it was agreed that the
employment cases prior to 01.07.1996 will be considered by the management. After initial medical examination and
screening of Panchu Kole at Colliery and Area level, the employment file was sent to the ECL Headquarters. As per
letter No. ECL/JC/C-6/P&IR/2016-17/49/469 dated 12/14.03.2017 Panchu Kole was advised to appear before the
General Manager (Personnel), ECL, along with some more documents. No information was given to the incumbent
regarding the fate of his application and finally the present Industrial Dispute has been raised. According to the
workman Clause 9.5.0(iii) of National Coal Wage Agreement-V (hereinafter referred to as NCWA-V) provides :
“ In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no
employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is fifteen (15) years and above in age
he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications
when he attains the age of eighteen (18) years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female
dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above.”
Therefore, the name of the dependent son should have been maintained in the Live Roster and employment should be
provided on his attaining the age of eighteen years. In the instant case Initial Medical Examination (hereinafter
referred to as IME) of Panchu Kole was held on 16.07.1999 after lapse of four years. The management did not offer
any Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (hereinafter referred to as MMCC) to the wife of the deceased and the
name of Panchu Kole was not maintained in the Live Roster. During conciliation proceeding the management claimed
that mother of Panchu Kole was an employee of the company and nowhere in the NCWA it was mentioned that if the
mother of the dependent in an employee of the company, the dependent of the deceased employee will not get
employment under the company. According to the petitioner, management has deliberately violated the provisions of
NCWA. It is admitted that Smt. Jiria Kole, wife of Sanichar Kole was an employee of Parascole Colliery under
Kunustoria Area of ECL. The union prayed that the management may be directed to provide employment to the
dependent without further delay and compensation for the delay caused.
3.
Management contested the Reference case by filing their written statement on 16.04.2024. It is contended
inter-alia that Clause 3.6(iii) of Implementation Instruction No. 8 (hereinafter referred to as I.I. No. 8) under NCWA-
V, circulated vide Ref. No. CIL:JBCCI-V:I.I.No.(8/96)/2627 dated 22.02.1996 provides :
“ In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0 (NCWA- V), if
no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he
will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when
he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be
paid monetary compensation”
It is further stated that the Chief Personnel Manager (IR), Coal India Limited issued a clarification dated
14/16.10.2003 bearing Ref. No. CIL/C-5B/JBCCI/194, which reads as follows :
3386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“ THE PROVISION TO KEEP NAME OF MINOR DEPENDANT IN THE LIVE ROSTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EMPLOYMENT UNDER CLAUSE 9.4.0 OF NCWA-V, AS PER PARA 3.6(III) OF THIS OFFICE
IMPLEMENTATION INSTRUCTION NO.8 OF NCWA-V CIRCULATED VIDE NO. CIL/JBCCI-V/I.I.NO.(8/96)/2627
DATED 22.2.1996 IS EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE ORDER I.E., 22.2.1996.”
Management contended that Panchu Kole was examined by the IME Board and his age was assessed as 20 to 25 years
on 16.07.1999. Accordingly, he was 16 years and 10 Months of age on the date of death of his father. Being a minor
there was no provisions for maintaining his name in the Live Roster. As per Clause 3.6(iii) of I.I. No. 8 dated
22.02.1996 under NCWA-V it is claimed that compassionate appointment should not be granted after passage of
thirty (30)years form the date of death of employee. The management of ECL further relied upon a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs. Anil Badyakar and Others [Civil
Appeal No. 3597 of 2009].
4.
Panchu Kole filed affidavit-in-chief in support of his case and stated that his age was 16 years and 10 months
on the date of death of his father on 18.11.1993. He was examined by the IME Board and the employment file was
processed and forwarded to the Headquarters of ECL. He visited the Headquarters on several dates and submitted his
representation but management did not provide him employment nor granted MMCC to his mother. In course of his
examination the witness produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the Death Registration Certificate of Sanichar Kole is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Death Registration Certificate of Jiria Kole as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of Pre-employment Medical Examination Report dated 16.07.1999, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of letter dated 12/14.03.2017 issued by the Assistant Manager (P), Jambad Colliery addressed
to Panchu Kole, advising him to appear before the General Manager (P&IR), ECL, Santoria,
Headquarters, along with Identity Cards, witnesses and indemnifier, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of letter dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Dy. Manager(P)/Empl., asking the Area Personnel
Manager, Kajora Area, to inform Panchu Kole to appear before the General Manager (P&IR), ECL,
Santoria, Headquarters on or before 08.07.2022 along with his Identity Cards for his employment,
as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of letter of Panchu Kole dated 22.03.2023 addressed to the H.O.D. (P&IR), Sanctoria,
Headquarters, regarding his appearance on 22.03.2023 at 3.30 p.m., as Exhibit W-6.
5.
It transpires from his evidence that his mother died on 21.07.1996. In the year 1995 he submitted an
application before the management claiming employment for himself. In course of cross-examination the witness
deposed that he was 18 years old at the time of his father‘s death and he appeared before the Medical Board for his
employment. The witness later stated that at the time of his father‘s death he was 16 years and 10 months and denied
the suggestion that his name could not be mentioned in the Live Roster after death of his father as there were no
guiding rules in the company for maintaining the names of the minor dependents in the Live Roster.
6.
Mr. Ramjee Tripathi, Assistant Manager (HR), Jambad Colliery, ECL, examined himself as Management
Witness No. 1. He referred to I.I. No. 8 under NCWA-V, communicated through Circular 22.02.1996 and clarification
dated 14/16.10.2003 bearing No. CIL/C-5B/JBCCI/194, where it is stated that the provision to keep the name of the
minor dependent in the Live Roster for the purpose of employment under Cluse 9.4.0 of NCWA-V as per Clause
3.6(iii) of I.I. No. 8 under NCWA-V would be effective from the date of issuance of the order i.e., 22.02.1996. It is
asserted that the age of Panchu Kole was 16 years 10 months at the time of death of his father and being a minor, he
could not claim employment. It is further stated that more than 30 years have been passed since the date of death of
employee and the son cannot claim employee after such a long period. During examination the witness produced the
following documents :
(i)
Copy of the application form for employment of Panchu Kole, in a prescribed pro forma is produced
as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Death Registration Certificate of Sanichar Kole, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of Service Record Excerpt of Sanichar Kole, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of Pre-employment Medical Examination Report of Panchu Kole, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of Form ‗B‘ of Jiria Kole, as Exhibit M-5.
7.
In course of cross-examination the management witness deposed that the provision for maintaining the name
of dependent in the Live Roster for providing employment was started from 22.02.1996. Initially the minimum age
for maintaining names of the dependents in the Live Roster was 15 years and from the year 2000 the minimum age
limit was reduced to 12 years.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3387
8.
Heard the argument advanced by Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the dependent son.
It is argued that the management has not provided employment to the dependent son as per provisions of NCWA-V,
which provides for maintaining the name of minor son in the Live Roster until he attains majority. It is submitted that
IME Board on examination held on 16.07.1999, assessed the age of the candidate between 20 to 25 years (Exhibit M-
4). Therefore, his age at the time of his father‘s death can be computed as 16 years and 10 months. It is argued that as
per provision under Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA-V, if the male dependent was above 15 years of age, his name is
required to be kept in the Live Roster for providing employment on attaining majority.
9.
Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, learned advocate for the management, in reply argued that though NCWA-V was
made applicable during the period from 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1996, but as per Circular bearing Ref. No. CIL:JBCCI-
V:I.I.No.(8/96)/2627 dated 22.02.1996, the provision to keep the name of the minor dependent in the Live Roster for
the purpose of providing employment under of NCWA-V was made effective from the date of issuance of the Order
i.e., 22.02.1996 and the petitioner is not entitled to any employment.
10.
Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the
materials on record along with various provisions of NCWA-V and Circular dated 22.02.1996, I am of the considered
view that Panchu Kole, son of the deceased employee was a minor at the time of death of his father on 18.11.1993.
Though other provisions of NCWA-V were made applicable and binding w.e.f. 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1996, the
expressed provision of Circular dated 22.02.1996 made it clear that the provision related to maintaining the names of
minor dependents in the Live Roster of the company for the purpose of employment on attaining majority, in the case
of death of employment would be apply only from the date of issuance of I.I. No. 8 dated 22.02.1996. Therefore, the
claim for employment of Panchu Kole cannot be entertained under the provisions of NCWA. The management of
Jambad Colliery therefore did not controvert any provision of NCWA by not allowing the prayer for employment of
the dependent son.
11.
It is gathered from the evidence of the petitioner that his mother Jiria Kole was an employee of ECL at
Parascole Colliery under Kunustoria Area and she died on 21.07.1996, therefore there is no justification in the claim
for MMCC at this stage. Accordingly, I hold that the present Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest against Panchu Kole, son of Late Sanichar Kole, ex-
employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the
Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 678.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सि–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV(संिभव संक्या 19/2024
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22013/01/2026- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 19/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22013/01/2026– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
3388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REFERENCE CASE NO. 19 OF 2024
PARTIES: Muktinath Dubey, Secretary, CMU (INTUC)
Vs.
(1) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ECL, Sanctoria.
(2) General Manager, Satgram Sripur Area, ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union:
Mr. Ram Briksh Prasad, Adv.
For the ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
COAL.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
04.02.2026
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of
the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, vide its Order No. 24(42)/2024-IR dated 18.12.2024 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, i.e., (1) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ECL,
Sanctoria and (2) General Manager, Satgram Sripur Area, ECL and Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union (INTUC) for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited in merging Sripur Area with Satgram
Area is justified? If not, what relief the employee of Sripur Area is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. 24(42)/2024-IR dated 18.12.2024 from the Office of the Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute a
Reference case was registered on 23.12.2024 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through
registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support
of their claims.
2.
Union filed written statement on 19.08.2025 stating therein that Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ECL) was merged with Satgram Area of ECL vide Order No. ECL/C-
5(D)/Min/1041363/EE/1031 dated 31.03.2023 issued by Mr. Subrata Dasgupta, Deputy General Manager (P/EE),
ECL, Headquarters, Sanctoria. The Office Order was circulated on ‗WhatsApp‘ and no hard copy of the same is
provided to the Department of erstwhile Sripur Area nor to the central trade union of the Area. According to the union
out of fourteen (14) Areas, Works Committees at Area level were not discussed by the management about such
merger. Therefore, Works Committees functioning in different forums of Area level as Area JCC, Area Welfare
Board, Area Tripartite committee, etc. were not informed. The entire erstwhile committee of Sripur Area was
abolished. The order of merger has leading to unfair labour practice under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The union
further contended that in majority number of cases unions were party to the agreement along with management of
erstwhile Sripur Area and they have been badly affected due to the merger. The post of Area General Manager and
Head of Departments have been amalgamated into one instead of two. The contract workers who are engaged as
Driver of hired vehicles and erstwhile Sripur Area have lost their employment. The setup of Area Offices of erstwhile
Sripur Area were shifted to Satgram. Due to merger of the two areas promotional scope of employees have been
reduced due to Manpower Budget. Ex-employees of erstwhile Sripur Area are wandering for payment of their legal
dues. Under such circumstances the union prayed to pass an order to set aside the unjustified order of the
management, resulting in merger of Sripur Area with Satgram Area.
3.
Management has filed their written statement contending inter-alia that the dispute raised by the union does
not constitute any Industrial Dispute and submitted that the merger of Sripur Area and Satgram Area w.e.f.
01.04.2023 has been approved by ECFD of ECL on the 29th Meeting of 2022 and the said merger is the policy matter
of the company which has come into existence vide Order No. ECL/C-5(D)/Min/1041363/EE/1031 dated 31.03.2023.
A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-I. Management further contended that the service conditions of the
employees on the roll of Satgram-Sripur Area have remained unaltered and the interest of employees has not been
affected due to such merger, which is purely on administrative ground, for better functioning of the Mines under
Satgram-Sripur Area and the union has no right to challenge the merger in any manner. Management asserted that the
merger of Sripur and Satgram Areas is justified and the union is not entitled to get any relief.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3389
4.
The case is fixed up today on the point of maintainability. Learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties advanced their arguments, reiterating the stand taken by them in their pleadings. I have carefully considered
the contention of the union and management‘s argument, justifying the decision of merger of the two areas on the
ground that it is an administrative policy of the company and does not affect the employees adversely in any manner.
5.
Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has defined the terms ―Industrial Dispute‖ :
“ "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and
workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the
terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.”
6.
The union has expressed its grievance for not been consulted before the merger of the two Areas by the
management on 31.03.2023. It appears from letter bearing No. ECL/CS/27 (Z-7)/29th of 2022/4 dated 30.11.2022
that a meeting was held by the Empowered Committee of the Functional Directors of Eastern Coalfields Limited on
21.11.2022 and after carrying out a detailed study, a report was placed by the Vigilance Department on merger of the
Sripur and Satgram Areas, which was considered by the Secretary (Coal), Government of India on 10.01.2022. After
detailed deliberation the empowered committee agreed to accept the Vigilance Department‘s report on merger of two
areas. The said decision was taken for the purpose of benefit of the company and effective deployment of manpower
by abolition of key posts of one of the areas, giving rise to saving in POL to the tune of Rs. 0.47 crore and savings in
hiring charges of vehicles at an estimated annual savings of Rs. 129.47 crore.
7.
In my considered view such benefits accruing to the employer company due to the merger would certainly
benefit the management as well as union. Not a single case has been cited whereby an employee of the company has
been adversely affected due to such decision. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the union to raise objection
against the decision of the management merging two areas of ECL for administrative and financial benefits. The
decision taken by the management is a prerogative of the management and the union has no locus standi to claim its
participation in taking such decision. I therefore, hold that the Reference made as Industrial Dispute is not
maintainable as it does not satisfy the test of Industrial Dispute and it does not disturb the terms of employment or the
conditions of labours or any person.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. The Reference case is found not maintainable as it does
not satisfy the test of Industrial Dispute. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the
Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 679.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सि–
] आसनसोल
ds iapkV (संिभव संक्या-15/2022) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22012/44/2022- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 15/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22012/44/2022– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
3390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 15 OF 2022
PARTIES: Sourav Das
Vs.
Management of Central Hospital, Kalla, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, CMC
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
COAL.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
30.01.2026
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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/44/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 04.05.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Central Hospital at Kalla of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Central Hospital,
Kalla in non-payment/denial of payment of House Rent Allowance from the month of April, 2019 in respect
of Shri Sourav Das, Physiotherapist, Central Hospital, Kalla, U.M. No. 135392 is just and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/44/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 04.05.2022 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 04.05.2022 /
01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
The aggrieved workman filed written statement on 31.01.2023 through Mr. Bipul Banerjee, Advocate. Fact
of the case in brief is that, Sourav Das is a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to
as ECL) and he is presently posted as a Physiotherapist at Central Hospital, Kalla on his transfer from Jhanjra Project
Colliery on 18.03.2019. The workman is resident of Laskarbandh, Natundanga, PO: Loudoha, Dist.: Paschim
Bardhaman. His place of work is situated more than five kilometers away from his place of residence. According to
the house allotment rules of the employer company, quarters are provided to the employees who are residing beyond
five kilometers and if quarters are not provided by the company they are entitled to House Rent Allowance
(hereinafter referred to as HRA) according to the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred
to as NCWA). According to the workman no quarters has been allotted to him due to which the workman had to make
his own arrangement for accommodation at Asansol. He submitted an application dated 12.08.2020 requesting for
cancellation of his prayer for allotment of quarters and further prayed for HRA as per rules of the company. The
workman also submitted application dated 27.11.2019 and 07.04.2021, requesting for payment of HRA since his
joining at Central Hospital, Kalla but the management has not paid him any HRA.
3.
Further case of the workman is that Office Order No. ECL/CHK/Quarter/2019/3162 dated 26.12.2019 has no
application upon him. Furthermore, a common letter bearing No. ECL/CHK/Admn/2021/1340 dated 24/29.04.2021
addressed to four other persons, informing that the representations made by them will be raised in the meeting of
House Committee for allotment of quarters has no application upon him. It is disclosed in his written statement that
the he was receiving HRA at the rate of Rs.525.86/- (Rupees five hundred twenty-five and eighty-six paise only) per
month during his posting at Jhanjra Project Colliery and he is entitled to same on his joining Central Hospital at Kalla
from April 2019 till date.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3391
4.
Management of Central Hospital at Kalla contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement
on 31.01.2023, wherein it is stated that the workman after joining Central Hospital at Kalla applied for allotment of
quarters on 31.10.2019, stating that his residence at Laskarbandh was approximately fifty (50) Kilometers away from
his place of work. According to the management, quarters is allotted to the employee as per record of the Housing
Committee. A meeting of the Housing Committee was held on 17.12.2019 and the Housing Committee allotted
Quarters No. NTD-4/4 to the workman as per his entitlement. The workman did not occupy the same and submitted
an application on 12.06.2020, requesting for allotment of ‗A‘ type Quarters. As per housing rules of the company,
employees who are in the grade below Technical ‗C‘ are entitled to NHS or below ‗A‘ type quarters as such the
concerned workman was entitled to allotment of NHS/NTD type quarters and not ‗A‘ type Quarters. According to the
guidelines of the company vide ECL/CMD/C-6E/10/621 dated 21.07.2012 issued by the General Manager (P&IR),
ECL, employees refusing to occupy the allotted quarters or surrender the allotted quarters will not be eligible to draw
HRA. The management asserted that the workman having refused to accept the allotted quarters is not entitled to
any HRA.
5.
The moot question for consideration is whether the action of the management of ECL denying payment of
HRA to Sourav Das, an employee of Central Hospital, Kalla from April, 2019 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to.
6.
In order to establish the claim for HRA, Sourav Das has been examined as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed
an affidavit-in-chief where he clearly stated that no quarters was allotted to him and by his letter dated 27.11.2019 he
requested the management for payment of HRA. He further stated that on 12.06.2020 he submitted an application
with a further request for allotment of quarters but the management did not take any action. When no quarters was
allotted to him, he arranged for a rented accommodation at Asansol and submitted an application dated 12.08.2020
for cancellation of his prayer for allotment of quarters. It appears from his averment in the affidavit-in-chief that the
management informed him along with four others by letter bearing No. ECL/CHK/Admn/2021/1340 dated
24/29.04.2021 that his representation will be raised in the meeting of the Housing Committee for allotment of
quarters. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-chief that previously he was receiving HRA of Rs.525.86/- per month. The
witness asserted that denial of HRA to him from April, 2019 is illegal and he is entitled to HRA. The witness
produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of application of Sourav Das dated 31.10.2019, praying for allotment of quarters is produced
as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of application of Sourav Das submitted on 27.11.2019 for payment of House Rent Allowance,
as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of application of Sourav Das dated 12.06.2020 addressed to the Personnel Manager, Central
Hospital, Kalla, whereby he once again prayed for allotting ‗A‘ type quarters, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of application of Sourav Das dated 12.08.2020 whereby he prayed for cancellation of his
earlier application for allotment of company‘s quarter, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of letter dated 24/29.04.2021 issued by the CMO (Admn), Central Hospital, Kalla, informing
Sourav Das that his representation for payment of HRA was forwarded to ECL Headquarters for
approval, as Exhibit W-5).
(vi)
Copy of Pay slip for the month March, 2019, as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Copy of Pay slip for the month April, 2019, as Exhibit W-6/1.
7.
On cross-examination by the management, workman witness admitted that he heard that quarters were
allotted to the employees of ECL after decision was taken by the Housing Committee of Central Hospital, Kalla. The
workman witness was not confronted with the letter of allotment of quarters dated 26.12.2019 and he further deposed
that despite submission of his application, the Housing Committee of Central Hospital, Kalla did not allot any
quarters to him and no communication was made to him regarding allotment of quarters.
8.
Mr. Raj Narayan Bhattacharjee, Chief Manager (Pers), Central Hospital, Kalla is examined as Management
Witness No. 1. In his affidavit-in-chief the witness stated that Sourav Das came on transfer to Central Hospital, Kalla
on 18.03.2019. After joining he applied for allotment of quarters on 31.10.2019, stating that he was attending his
work from his residential address at Laskarbandh which is 50 Kilometers from Central Hospital, Kalla. The witness
stated that Sourav Das is not entitled to HRA as quarters was allotted to him by the management w.e.f. 26.12.2019.
The witness produced the copy of application submitted by Sourav Das dated 31.10.2019 as Exhibit M-1 and a copy
of Office Order dated 26.12.2019 showing allotment of Quarters No. NTD-4/4 at Central Hospital, Kalla in favour of
Sourav Das as Exhibit M-2. The witness deposed that after quarters was allotted, Sourav Das submitted an application
on 12.06.2020, praying for allotment of ‗A‘ type Quarters to him on early basis which has been marked as Exhibit M-
3. The witness deposed that Sourav Das was not eligible for ‗A‘ type Quarters and no reply was given to his
application. It transpires from his testimony that Sourav Das thereafter submitted an application dated 12.08.2020
stating that since he had applied for the quarters one year earlier and no quarters was allotted to him, his prayer for
allotment of quarters may be cancelled. The prayer for cancellation of quarters has been produced as Exhibit M-4.
The witness produced a copy of letter dated 21.03.2009 issued by the General Manager (Admin/Welfare) addressed to
CMO (I/C), Central Hospital, Kalla wherein it was communicated that the Director (Personnel), ECL in the
35th meeting of Coal India Limited Welfare Board Meeting held on 21.04.2007 decided that payment of HRA may be
3392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
allowed in those mines / areas only where there is a shortage of quarters. HRA should not be paid if quarters are
available, or allotted but are not accepted by the concerned employee. The copy of letter has been admitted in
evidence as Exhibit M-5.
9.
Opportunity was given to the aggrieved workman to cross-examine the witness but he declined. Union did
not take any step and no accommodation was sought for cross-examination of the management witness on any other
date. The evidence of Management Witness No. 1 was accordingly closed.
10.
Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative advancing his argument on behalf of the workman submitted that the
workman joined Central Hospital, Kalla on 18.03.2019 on his transfer from Jhanjra Project Colliery. On earlier
occasion according to NCWA the workman was receiving HRA at the Rate of Rs.525.86/- per month and the same
would be evident from Exhibit W-6, the Pay slip of March, 2019. It is submitted that HRA was stopped from April,
2019 which can be gathered from Exhibit W-6/1. It is argued that on his transfer to Central Hospital, Kalla the
workman applied for allotment of quarters on 31.10.2019 (Exhibit W-1) but no quarters was allotted to him. After
waiting for a considerable period, the workman again applied for allotment of ‗A‘ type quarters to him on 12.06.2020
(Exhibit W-3). The management of ECL did not consider the prayer, due to which the workman continued to suffer
and had to make his own arrangement for accommodation for his family members at Asansol. The workman
thereafter submitted application dated 12.08.2020 (Exhibit W-4) for cancellation of his application for allotment of
quarters. It is argued that the management neither allotted quarters nor paid any HRA to the workman which is illegal
and contrary to the provisions of NCWA.
11.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate, in reply argued that the workman was allotted with Quarters on 26.12.2019
along with 20 other employees on the basis of decision taken in the Housing Committee meeting held on 17.12.2019
but Sourav Das did not take possession of the same nor did he refuse. Learned advocate heavily relied upon Exhibit
M-2, the Office Order dated 26.12.2019 related to allotment of quarters to the employees and submitted that in letter
dated 21.03.2009 (Exhibit M-5) issued by the General Manager (Admin./Welfare) it was informed that in the 35th
meeting of Coal India Limited Welfare Board Meeting held on 21.04.2007 it was decided that payment of HRA may
be allowed in those mines / areas only where there is a shortage of quarters. HRA should not be paid if quarters are
available, or allotted but are not accepted by the concerned employee. Learned advocate strenuously argued that the
management cannot act on whims and fancies of the workman who after praying for allotment of quarters did not
accept the quarters allotted to him but prayed for allotment of ‗A‘ type quarters for which he was not entitled. It is
urged that the workman is not entitled to any HRA.
12.
Having, considered the fact and circumstances of this case it is crystal clear that Sourav Das who had been
receiving HRA at Jhanjra Project Colliery at the rate of Rs.525.86/- per month till March, 2019 and did not get HRA
after his joining at Central Hospital, Kalla on 18.03.2019. Undisputedly, the workman for the first time applied for
allotment of quarters to him on 31.10.2019 (Exhibit M-1/W-1) and within a span of one and a half (1½) months a
Housing Committee Meeting was held on 17.12.2019 and Sourav Das along with 20 other employees were allotted
quarters according to their designation at Central Hospital, Kalla. It is therefore apparent that quarters were available
and the same were allotted to the employees on the basis of their prayer. Though the workman did not whisper about
allotment of quarters to him. In Paragraph No. (7) of the written statement the workman stated that the Office Order
bearing No. ECL/CHK/Quarter/2019/3162 dated 26.12.2019 (Exhibit M-2) has no application upon the workman. In
his affidavit-in-chief the workman has outright denied the fact of allotment of quarters in his favour, which is untrue.
The workman neither raised any dispute regarding type of quarters he is entitled nor did he raise any objection that the
quarters allotted to him was not habitable due to bad state of repair. The management witness satisfactorily proved the
issuance of Office Order dated 26.12.2019 as Exhibit M-2, whereby Quarters No. NTD-4/4 was allotted to Sourav
Das. The workman did not venture to refute such facts during cross-examination of the management witness. On the
basis of such evidence on record, I hold that the concerned workman is only entitled to HRA for the period from
April, 2019 to November, 2019 until quarters was allotted to him. Since, the management allotted quarters
commensurate with the grade of the employee, he cannot refuse the same on a plea that he wanted ‗A‘ type quarters.
On the basis of my above findings, I find that the workman is entitled to HRA only for a period of eight (8) months,
that is from April, 2019 to November, 2019 at the rate of Rs.525.86/- (Rupees five hundred twenty-five and eighty-six
paise only) per month.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed in part in favour of Sourav Das. The workman is entitled to House Rent
Allowance at the rate of Rs.525.86/- (Rupees five hundred twenty-five and eighty-six paise only) per month for a
period of eight (8) months only, from April, 2019 to November, 2019 from the management of employer company.
He is not entitled to any HRA thereafter from December, 2019 as he refused to occupy the quarters allotted to him
without any cogent reason. The management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to pay the House Rent
Allowance to Sourav Das for eight (8) months within one (1) month from the date of communication of the Award.
Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry
of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3393
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 680.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संिभव संक्या 07/2024) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22013/01/2026- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 07/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/03/2026.
[No. L-22013/01/2026– IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-Cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 07 OF 2024
Bibek Sharma
PARTIES:
Represented by President Colliery Mazdoor Congress (INTUC)
-VS-
Management of Bansra Colliery, E.C.Ltd.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Represented for the union
: Mr. Chandi Banerjee, President of CMC(INTUC)
For the management of E.C.Ltd. : Smt. Swapna Basu, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
COAL
STATE :
WEST BENGAL
DATED:
02.02.2026
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section 5 of Section 12 read with sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Dispute Acts, 1947 (14th of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide
order No.1(18)/2024-E dated 13.03.2024 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer that is
the management of Bansra Colliery, Kunustoria Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd. and their workman for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. E.C.Ltd. in not
regularizing Sri Bibek Sharma as Fitter/Assistant Foreman (Mech) is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to‖.
1. On receiving order No.1(18)/2024-E dated 13.03.2024 from the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour through Mr. Vinay Kumar Trivedi, the then Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol for
adjudication of the Industrial Dispute which arosed between the employer and employee, the reference case was
registered on 15.03.2025 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties under registered post directing them
to appear through their authorized representative and file Written Statement alongwith list of witnesses.
3394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Mr. Chandi Banerjee, union representative appeared on behalf of Bibek Sharma, the aggrieved employee and
filed Written Statement on 07.05.2024, Smt. Swapna Basu, learned advocate appeared for the management of M/s.
E.C.Ltd. and filed Written Statement on 05.07.2024.
3. In order to substantiate the claim for regularization as a Fitter/Assistant Foreman (Mech), the union
examined Bibek Sharma as workman witness No.1. In his affidavit in chief the witness stated that he was appointed
as General Mazdoor on 18.07.2017 and was posted at Bansra Colliery, Kunustoria Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd. He is a
matriculated of 2007 and passed his I.Sc. examination from Bihar School Examination Patna in 2010. He has an ITI
Certificate of Baliapur Technology, Sindri of the year 2013. After completion of his service for three years he was
deployed as a fitter based on his performance, experience and certificate of Fiter was issued by Colliery management.
The workman made representation before the management for his regularization as a Fitter, enclosing his certificate,
but no action was taken. Hence, this dispute. The workman was examined on 30.10.2024 and documents were
marked as Exhibit W-1 to W-6, witness was cross-examined at the instance of management. A copy of attestation
form of the workman was admitted in evidence as Exhibit M-1. Workman denied the suggestion that he does not
possess required educational qualification for his appointment to the post of Fitter Helper. After evidence workman
did not appear on consecutive dates and did not put his signature on his evidence.
4. The management contested the case by filing written statement wherein it is stated that Bibek Sharma did not
fulfill the eligibility criteria for his promotion/regularization as a Fitter (Mech) or Assistant Foreman TS Grade-C.
The action of the management for non-regularization of Bibek Sharma is absolutely justified.
5.
The management examined one Pratik Vitthal Sathe as management witness No.1 who filed his affidavit-in-
chief. Management produced 3(three) documents, one of which is Implementation Instruction No.50, which is
marked as exhibited M-1, Attestation Form with Bio-data of the workman alongwith Madhyamik Pass Certificate and
ITI Training Certificate as exhibited M-2 and Implementation Instruction for promotion of Electrician Helper to
Foreman-In-charge and Assistant Foreman/Chargeman to Foreman-in-charge as exhibit M-3. Management witness
has been cross-examined.
6.
The case is fixed up today for hearing during special campaign. Smt. Swapna Basu, learned advocate for the
management of M/s. ECL submitted that Bibek Sharma has already been regularized as a Fitter Helper (Mech) in
Category -II on the basis of office order No.ECL/KNT/BC/P&IR/2025/3508 dated 03.03.2025 and the workman is
not appearing before this Tribunal as his grievance has already been redressed. Learned Advocate prayed for disposal
of the Industrial Dispute in the form of a ‗No Dispute‘.
7.
On repeated call at 11.55 P.M. none appeared for the workman. I have carefully considered the schedule
containing the Industrial Dispute, pleading of the parities, evidence adduced as well as office order dated 03.03.2025
for regularization in the light of the argument advanced by Smt. Basu, learned advocate. The workman having
appeared before the court for his relief did not turn up to put his signature on the evidence recorded by this Tribunal.
The evidence of WW-1, therefore is expunged. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears
to me that the grievance of the workman has already been addressed by the management by way of regularizing in the
post of Fitter Helper (Mech) Category-II. Therefore, there is no dispute between the parties relating to the subject
matter of reference. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly dismissed.
Hence,
ORDER
The Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest against the workman. Let a no dispute award be drawn up on
the basis of my above observation.
Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry for information and notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 15 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 681.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a133/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/358/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3395
New Delhi, the 15th April, , 2026
S.O. 681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.133/2001) 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-12012/358/2000– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 133/2001
Between:
Sri M. Ganga Ram,
S/o M. Devamma,
(P&V) Masanpally,
(M) Kalher,
Medak Distt 502371.
… 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-12012/358/2000-IR(B.I) dated
27.04.2001 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. GangaRam Temporary/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. 133/2001 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
3396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and
set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of
India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their
termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises.
This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was
challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The
aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of
Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was
pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial 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 at Kalher branch, Medak Dist, during the year 1988 and
he worked upto March, 1997 in different branches like Narayankhed, Allahdurg, Jogipet, Nizamabad etc. Most of the
times he worked as a Messenger and some times he worked as a sweeper depending upon the necessity of work. He
was asked to appear for the interview by a letter dated 27.6.1989 and he appeared in the Interview, he was selected
and his name was included in the panel for permanenet employment. The work turned out by the Petitioner was of a
permanent in nature and the Respondent has continued him for years together on temporary basis and it is an unfair
labour practice. It is submitted that though sufficient work was the officers of the Respondent Bank have created
artificial breaks in his service and made an attempt to dent the protection to him under the labour laws. It is submitted
that the Respondent has not continued his services beyond that without assigning any valid reasons. It is submitted
that the Petitioner is a married person having old aged mother and two children. His children are going to school. The
Petitioner submits that sudden termination of his services by the Respondent has resulted in untold hardship to him
and to his innocent family members. The Petitioner submits that his last drawn salary was Rs. 3000/- per month
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- 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3397
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
absorb them in service.
3398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3399
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
3400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3401
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 W27. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support
of his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 to Ex.W5 are school certificates. Ex.W6 is the caste certificate. Ex. W7 to Ex. W9 are Service certificates.
Ex. W10 is the interview call letter. Ex. W11 is the Panel list. Ex.W12 is service certificate. Ex.W13 is absorption
letter. Ex.W14 is the employment order and Ex.W15 is panel. Ex.W16 to Ex.W26 are service certificates. Ex.W27 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 M. Ganga Ram, 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.
3402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3403
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
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.
3404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3405
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,
“My name was not sponsored by any employment exchange for the purpose of engagement as an attender.”
“I did not work for 240 days 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.
3406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
Although the petitioner has also examined WW2 Sri Ramvath Baksha to corroborate his claim, but this witness in his
cross examination has stated that he cannot say on what date he worked along with the petitioner in the bank and
during which month they have worked together in the branch. Further, witness added that he is not having any proof
to show that he along with the petitioner was terminated from service. Further, witness added that he had no proof
to show that any of their juniors are working and there are any vacancies in the bank. Thus, from the statement of
WW2, the claim of the petitioner is not corroborated in material.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3407
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.
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
3408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 did not apply to pursuant to any notification for the purpose of my appointment as a temporary
attender/messenger. …. Further, witness states, It is true that the Persons whose names are included in the panel
were given appointment on regular basis as per the no. of days they worked and depending upon the no. of
vacancies of messengers. …. Further witness states, It is not true to say that no junior of mine 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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3409
(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
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.
3410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3411
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 M. Ganga Ram, 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 16th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1:
Sri Md. Murthuza
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
WW2:
Sri Ramavath Baksha
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopies of school certificates
to Ex.W5
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of caste certificate
Ex.W7:
Photocopies of Service Certificates
to Ex.W9
Ex.W10:
Photocopy of interview call letter
Ex.W11:
Photocopy of Panel list
Ex.W12:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W13:
Photocopy of absorption letter
Ex.W14:
Photocopy of the employment order
Ex.W15:
Photocopy of panel
3412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W16
to Ex.W26:
Photocopies of Service Certificates
Ex.W27:
Photocopy of the 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, 15 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 682.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a222/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/126/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2026
S.O. 682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 222/2001) 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-12012/126/2001– 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 18th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 222/2001
Between:
Sri P. Anil Kumar,
S/o Chenniah,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3413
H.No. 6-2-272/31/2,
Shoukat Nagar colony,
Rd.No. 2 Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500034.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Department)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank SP 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-12012/126/2001-IR(B.I) dated
18.09.2001 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 P. Anil 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. 222/2001 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
3414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1988 to 1997, and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years. The Respondent has terminated services of
Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent
bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by
wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.
4.
That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the
Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were
listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have
completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed
minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate
temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.
5.
The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and
the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.
Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the
suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the
selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be
valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no
temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from
amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that
consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for
responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was
held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to
be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is
mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was
entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary
employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the
years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the
panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have
been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st
settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd
settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement
(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all
these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3415
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
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
3416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3417
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
3418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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 interview call letter. Ex. W2A is the Absorption letter. Ex.W3 is the
panel list. Ex.W4 is the service certificate. Ex.W5 is the service certificate. Ex.W6 is the service certificate. Ex. W7
is the Service Certificate. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W9 is the letter to employment exchange by
Respondent. Ex. W10 is the ex.temporary employees inspection audit report. Ex. W11 is the letter to ALC
Hyderabad. Ex. W12 is the rejoinder.
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3419
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 P. Anil Kumar, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?
III.
Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent
management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?
IV.
To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?
Findings:-
25.
Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,
minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947
read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
3420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
“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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3421
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
3422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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."
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3423
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 did not undergo the regular process of selection before my
engagement as temporary Messenger in the branch..”
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank in any branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
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
3424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3425
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 and the union in the
year 1991, …. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service, put in by
the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given
regular appointment in the 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 of 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.
3426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3427
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
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.”
3428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.
Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels
and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such
employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the
counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the
available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the
date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in
the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for
absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not
established.
This point is answered against the Workman.
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. Anil Kumar, 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 18th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3429
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P. Anil Kumar
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of interview call letter
Ex. W2A: Photocopy of Absorption letter
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Panel list
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of letter to employment exchange by Respondent
Ex.W10:
Photocopy of employees inspection audit report
Ex.W11:
Photocopy of letter to ALC Hyderabad
Ex.W12:
Photocopy of rejoinder
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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 683.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a143/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/47/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
3430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 683.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 143/2002) 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-12012/47/2000– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 17th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 143/2002
(Old ID No.35/2000, transferred from Industrial Tribunal No.1, Hyderabad)
Between:
Sri C. Yogi Ramulu,
C-19,
Eastern Colony,
Srisailam Project,
Distt. Kurnool.
… Petitioner
And
The General Manager,
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
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-12012/47/2000-IR(B.I) dated 11.7.2000 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. 35/2000, 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, Srisailam Project, Township Branch in
terminating the services of Sri C. Yogi Ramulu, Messenger, from the services of the Bank by way of oral
orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 143/2002 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 1986-1994 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3431
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 has 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.
Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 17th 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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 684.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a100/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/454/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 684.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 100/2001) 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-12012/454/2000– 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 13th day of March, , 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 100/2001
Between:
Sri. M.J. Janardhan,
H.No. 6-4-258,
Bholakpur,
Secunderabad-500003.
… Petitioner
3432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Bank street,
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-12012/454/2000-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 M.J. Janardhan, 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. 100/2001 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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3433
(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 Respondent Bank at ECIL
Branch, Hyderabad on 27.12.1985 and he worked upto March, 1986 for 70 days as a Messenger. He was asked to
produce the certificates by a letter dt. 18.03.1989 for considering him for a permanent post. By a letter dt. 28.06.1989
he was called for an interview. By a letter dt. 3.09.1991 the concerned branch was informed about his selection and
his name was included in panel by a letter dt. 10.09.1991 at Sl No. 5 of the panel. He was issued with a telegram also
on 11.09.1991 informing him about his selection and to join duty. He was provided with work for 113 days during
September, 1991 to January, 1992 at ECIL branch Hyderabad. Again he was provided with work for 190 days during
August, 1993 to February, 1994. Similarly he was provided with work for 173 days during August 1994 to June,
1995. He was provided with work afterwards for 197 days during January, 1996 to August, 1996 an for another 85
days during January, 1997 to March, 1997. He states that his last drawn salary was Rs. 2,659.20ps. 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.
3434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3435
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.
3436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the
settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was
extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3437
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 W14. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support
of his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the Employment card. Further Ex.W2 is the Service Certificate dated 24.03.1986. Ex.W3 is the Service
Certificate. Ex. W4 is the absorption letter Ex. W5 is the Service particulars 4.04.1989. Ex. W6 is the Call letter for
interview Ex. W7 is the Pane list. Ex. W8 is the letter informing about his selection for not more than 200 days dated
10.09.1991. Ex. W9 is the Telegram to report for duty. Ex. W10 is the Service Certificate dated 08.01.1992. Ex. W11
is Service Certificate dated 01.03.1994. Ex. W12 is the Service Certificate Ex. W13 is the Service Certificate dated
31.08.1996. Ex. W14 is the Service Certificate dated 04.04.1997.
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
3438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. M.J. Janardhan 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3439
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.
“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.
3440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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--
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3441
(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.”
3442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service 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 regular process of selection before my
engagement as a temporary messenger in the bank..”
“I did not work for 240 days in any of the years I worked 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.
Although the petitioner has also examined WW2 Sri T. Shanti Kumar to corroborate his claim, but this witness in his
cross examination has stated that he has not filed any documents to show that during the month of December, 1985,
and from October 1991 to February, 1992 he had worked along with the petitioner. Further, witness added that he is
not having any proof to show that he along with the petitioner was terminated from service. Further, witness added
that he had no proof to show that any of their juniors are working and there are any vacancies in the bank. Thus, from
the statement of WW2, the claim of the petitioner is not corroborated in material.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3443
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
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
3444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 did not apply for employment pursuant to any notification issued by the bank…. Further, witness states, It is true
that the panel was prepared depending upon the service put in by the temporary messengers in the order of seniority.
It is true that the vacancies were filled up with the said empanelled temporary employees in the order of seniority. ….
Further witness states, It is true that I am not having any particulars or any proof to show that any of my juniors
were given employment 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3445
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
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.
3446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3447
“ 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 M.J. Janardhan, Ex.Non- Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,
dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed
by me on this the 13th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
3448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri M.J. Janardhan
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
WW2: Sri T. Shanti Kumar
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Employment card
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 24.03.1986
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of absorption letter
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service particulars
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of Call letter for interview
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Panel list
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 10.09.1991
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Telegram report for duty
Ex.W10:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 08.01.1992
Ex.W11:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 01.03.1994
Ex.W12:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W13:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 31.08.1996
Ex.W14:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 04.04.1997
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3449
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 685.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बीसीसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksंिं vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] िनबाि-I
ds iapkV (
53/2024) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –20013/01/2026- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026
S.O. 685.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 27/03/2026.
[No. L-20013/01/2026– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, 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. 53/2024
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of Simlabahal Colliery
under Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
AND
Their Workman
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri S.N. Singh, Advocate
For the workman :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 18/03/2026
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. 1/(77)/2024/A-7 dated 08/08/2024 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e.
management of Simlabahal Colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad and their workman through
Mantri, Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh, Hirapur, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of management of Simlabahal Colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s
BCCL in dismissing Sri Ramanand Paswan, Security Guard from the services of the company w.e.f. 10.11.2005
is fair and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖
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. 1/(77)/2024/A-7 dated 08/08/2024 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 53 of 2024 was registered on 20.08.2024 and thereafter the notices
were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents
and witnesses in support of their claims.
3450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. After receipt of the reference regd. notices were issued to both the parties and the management appeared on
certain dates but workman/union failed to appear before this Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to
workman/union but he again failed to appear. However Sri S.N. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the management
appeared and submitted that workman/union has not appeared since beginning in this case so case may be closed.
5. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that the workman/union never appeared before this Tribunal since
beginning which shows that he has lost his interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves
to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
6. 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, 6 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 686.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] आसनसोल
ds iapkV (स स -43/2023) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –22013/01/2026- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम- II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक/ललक अजिकारी
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2026
S.O. 686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference./43/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/03/2026.
[No. L-22013/01/2026– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director/Link officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 43 OF 2023
PARTIES: Khiru Das
Vs.
Management of Madhusudanpur Colliery, ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Jamaluddin Mia, General Secretary, RMBKS.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
04.04.2025.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3451
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of the
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, vide its Order No. 1(36)/2023/E dated 25.08.2023 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Madhusudanpur Colliery
under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Madhusudanpur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s ECL in not
regularising Shri Khiru Das to the post of Security Guard (T) is justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to ? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. 1(36)/2023/E dated 25.08.2023 from the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute a
Reference case was registered on 29.08.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through
registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support
of their claims.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. Case is fixed
up today for evidence of workman witness. On repeated calls at 12.45 PM, Khiru Das, the aggrieved workman
seeking regularization to the post of Security Guard (T) is not found available. Mr. Jamaluddin Mia, union
representative for Khiru Das is also found absent without steps.
3.
It appears from the order dated 07.08.2024 that management representative produced a copy of Office Order
dated 27/02/2024 which revealed that Khiru Das along with sixty-five others were directed to undergo one month‘s
basic training w.e.f. 01.03.2024 at Eastern Coalfields Limited Headquarters for their posting as security guards. It is
submitted on behalf of the management that postings shall be decided afterwards. Union representative was directed
to clarify the status whether he is inclined to proceed any further or not and the case was fixed up for evidence
workman witness on 22.11.2024, 04.02.2025 and once again is fixed up today i.e., on 04.04.2025. For the second
consecutive date, the union representative remained absent without taking any steps. Under such circumstances, the
Industrial Dispute is dismissed for non-prosecution. A No Dispute Award be drawn up accordingly.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed for default. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the
above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 13 माचव, 2026
का.आ. 687.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बीसीसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
] -I ds iapkV (
09/2002) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y –20012/431/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-I)]
जयिीृ यािव, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2026
S.O. 687.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 09/03/2026.
[No. L-20012/431/2001– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
3452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 09/2002
Parties:
Employer in relation to the management of Jealgora Colliery
Of M/s. BCCL, Jealgora, Dhanbad
AND
Their Workman
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri Aniket Sachan, Asstt. Manager (Legal)
For the workman :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 06/02/2026
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-20012/431/2001 -IR(C-I) dated 10/01/2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of Jealgora Colliery of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad and their workman through Secretary,
Colliery Karamchari Sangh, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of BCCL in non regularization of Shri Jagarnath as Cap Lamp
issue clerk is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?‖
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-20012/431/2001 -IR(C-I) dated 10/01/2002 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 09 of 2002 was registered on 15.01.2002 and thereafter
the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant
documents and 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 after 2006 this case was put up after a long gap on 30.07.2021 and registered notices
were issued to both the parties but workman/union failed to appear before this Tribunal and notice of the
workman/union returned with endorsement ―Incomplete Address‖. However Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate on behalf
of the management appeared. Today Sri Aniket Sachan, Asstt. Manager (Legal) on behalf of the management
appeared and submitted that workman is not present since 2005 so case may be closed.
5. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that workman/union never appeared before this Tribunal since
2005 which shows that he has lost his interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to
be dismissed for non prosecution.
6. 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3453
नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 688.— fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a99/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/453/2022- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 688.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 99/2001) 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-12012/453/2022– 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 13th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 99/2001
Between:
Sri. K.R.R. Pillai,
S/o R. Raghavan Pillai,
H.No. LIC-1-APIIC Colony,
Kushaiguda(P), ECIL,
Hyderabad-500062.
… 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-12012/453/2000-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 K.R.R. Pillai Temporary/ Non-Messenger, SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified?
If not, what relief the applicant is entitled ?‖
3454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 99/2001 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 as
Watchman at ECIL branch, Hyderabad 2.10.1985, worked there for 112 days till April, 1987. He states that he was
called for an interview during the year 1992 and he was selected by including his name in the Panel. The Petitioner
submits that he was provided with work again as a watchman at ECIL Branch, Hyderabad for 188 days during June,
1995 to December, 1995 for 193 days during March, 1996 to October, 1996 and for 24 days during February, 1997 to
March, 1997. The Petitioner submits that the Respondent has terminated his services on 31.03.1997 illegally. Further,
it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel
―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting
till such opportunity arises.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3455
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
absorb them in service.
3456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3457
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
3458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3459
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also examined Sri M.J. Janardhan
as WW2. Petitioner has 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 Study certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the Employment Exchange card. Ex.W3 is the Service Certificate
dated 03.08.1991. Ex. W4 is the Service Certificate dated 17.04.1986. Ex. W5 is the Service Certificate dated
21.07.1992. Ex. W6 is the letter calling for interview. Ex. W7 is the Panel list. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate
dated 16.12.1995. Ex. W9 is the Service Certificate dated 05.11.1996. Ex. W10 is the Service Certificate 15.04.1997.
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. K.R.R. Pillai, 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.
3460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3461
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
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.
3462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3463
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 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.
3464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
Although the petitioner has also examined WW2 Sri M.J. Janardhan to corroborate his claim, but this witness in his
cross examination has stated that they worked together in the months of December, 1985 January, to March of 1986
worked along with the petitioner in the bank and he has no details of the other days on which they worked together in
the same branch. Further, witness has admitted that he has not filed any documents to show that during the years
1985 and 1986 he had worked along with the petitioner. Further, witness added that he is not having any proof to
show that he along with the petitioner was terminated from service. Further, witness added that he had no proof to
show that any of their juniors are working and there are any vacancies in the bank. Thus, from the statement of
WW2, the claim of the petitioner is not corroborated in material.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3465
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.
3466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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 the order of their seniority…. 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
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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3467
(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.
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.
3468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3469
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. K.R.R. Pillai, 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 13th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri K.R.R. Pillai
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
WW2: Sri M.J. Janardhan
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Study certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Employment Exchange
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Service Certificate 03.08.1991
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 17.04.1986
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 21.07.1992
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of Call letter for interview
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Panel list
3470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 16.12.1995
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 05.11.1996
Ex.W10:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 15.04.1997
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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 689.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a18/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/321/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 689.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 18/2001) 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-12012/321/2000– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABA
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 18/2001
Between:
Smt. Chandrakala,
W/o. S. Rama Swamy,
R/o H.No. 12-1-493/A/70,
Sri Venkateswara Nagar colony,
Hasimnagar, Hyderabad..
… Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3471
And
The Asst. General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Hyderbad.
…..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-12012/321/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.4.2001
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 Smt S. Chandrakala, Temporary/Non-Messenger, by way of oral orders 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. 18/2001 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;
3472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 27-01-1988 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3473
Hon‘ble High court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from
time to time. It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The
Hon‘ble High Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement.
In view of the directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared
on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on
the basis of a settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel
was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992
and on the basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under
the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said
reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to
the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said
action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court
and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General
Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as
illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as
violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to
absorb them in service.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
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".
3474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3475
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
3476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 W9. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the service certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the call letter for interview. Ex.W3 is the selected panel of the
workers. Ex.W4 to Ex.W8 are service certificates. Ex.W9 is the minutes recorded by the ALC(C).
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3477
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 in terminating the services of
Workman Smt. S. Chandrakala, 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
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
3478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3479
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
3480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. My appointment was not as per any paper publication.”
“I did not work for 240 days in any of the years in the bank.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3481
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
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
3482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3483
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I was called for interview on 20.7.92 as per the settlements entered into between the union and the Management of
SBI.…. Further, witness states, It is true that the names were mentioned in the panel depending upon the number of
days they worked in the bank. ……
I do not know the names of any persons who were employed in the bank and made worked for less no. of days than
me.”
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.
3484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3485
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
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
3486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. S. Chandrakala, 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 16th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri S. Chandrakala
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of interview call letter
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of selected panel of the workers
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3487
Ex.W4 To
Ex.W8:
Photocopies of service certificates
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of minutes recorded by the Labour Department, ALC(C)
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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 690.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a50/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/254/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 50/2002) 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-12012/254/2000– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 50/2002
(Old ID No.142/2000, transferred from Industrial Tribunal No.1, Hyderabad)
3488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Between:
1. Smt. D. Prameela, (died per LRs)
2. Kum. D. Rajani Chaitanya-Daughter of Petitioner
3. Master D. Kiran Kumar- Son of Petitioner
4. Master D. Sharath Kumar- Son of Petitioner
R/o D.No.5/5-6-334/1, Agapura,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner(s)
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-12012/254/2000-IR(B.I) dated 16.10.2000 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. 142/2000, as per orders of
Central Government vide Lr.No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C.II) dated 18.10.2001, requiring this forum to decide the
question:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local head Office, Hyderabad in
terminating the services of Smt. D. Prameela, Temporary/Non-Messenger, by way of oral orders 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. 50/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and
the management.
2.
Petitioner has filed her claim statement and as per her claim she has worked continuously in the Respondent
organization during the period from 1983-1985 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 her with all benefits from
the date of her actual termination. During pendency of the dispute, Petitioner died and her LRs were brought on
record.
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 her 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 her termination in a 12 month of a calendar year. But, despite
sufficient opportunity petitioner/LRs 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.
Transmit.
Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th day
of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3489
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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 691.— fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a86/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/530/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 86/2001) 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-12012/530/2000– 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 13th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 86/2001
Between:
Sri. K. Yadaiah,
S/o K. Mogulaiah,
H.No. 1-1-187/3/14,
Vivekanagar,
Chikadapalli,
Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti,
Hyderabad- 500 095.
... Respondent
3490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-12012/530/2000-IR(B.I) dated
26.06.2001 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 K. Yadaiah 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. 86/2001 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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3491
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
Secunderabad Main Branch as a Messenger in August, 1989 and worked upto August, 1991 for 60 days. Thereafter
the Respondent Bank has invited applications from the experienced persons like him for regular employment. It is
submitted that he has applied for a permanent job in the Respondent bank on 18.09.1991. It is submitted that the
Respondent conducted the interview during the year 1992 and included his name in the panel of workers as as is
evident from the letter dt. 12.01.1993 of the Respondent bank and my name was included at Serial No.3 of the Panel.
It is submitted that afterwards he was provided with work as a non/messenger at Secunderabad Main branch for 199
days during the period 1.02.1993 to 21.08.1993. He was further provided with work in the same capacity in the same
branch for another 199 days during the period from 1.04.1994 to 20.10.1994. It is submitted that he was provided with
work at M.G. Road Branch, Secunderabad from October, 1994 t May, 1995 for 199 days as a messenger. In fact the
branch manager of the said bank has certified that my conduct and character was found good during this period.
Thereafter he working as a messenger at HAL Campus branch, Hyderabad and He working as a messenger in the said
branch. It is submitted that the chief manager of the said branch has dispensed with mu services by an order
dt.29.01.1996. It is submitted that the said officer in fact addressed a letter dt. 13.03.199 to the Assistant General
Manager, Secunderabad Main Branch confirming the said fact. It is submitted that there was sufficient work in the
Respondent bank and his juniors were continued while terminated his services. 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
3492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3493
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.
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
3494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3495
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 W11. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support
of his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the Service Certificate for 60 days. Further Ex.W2 is the Application Form. Ex.W3 is the Absorption
letter. Ex. W4 is the Panel list. Ex. W5 is the Service Certificate dated 08.08.1992. Ex. W6 is the Service Certificate
dated 20.08.1993. Ex. W7 is the Service Certificate dated 24.10.1994. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W9 is
the letter from the Hal Branch. Ex. W10 is the letter from Hal campus branch. Ex. W11 is Notice from the ALC(C).
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.
3496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. K. Yadaiah a Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?
III.
Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent
management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?
IV.
To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?
Findings:-
25.
Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,
minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947
read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3497
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
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
3498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3499
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service 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.
3500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange for appointment in the bank. I did not undergo the regular
selection process required for appointment as a non-messenger in the bank.”
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my 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.
Although the petitioner has also examined WW2 Sri R. Satyanarayana to corroborate his claim, but this witness in
his cross examination has stated that he cannot say on what date he worked along with the petitioner in the bank and
during which month they have worked together in the branch. Further, witness has admitted that he has not filed any
documents to show that during the year 1991 to March, 1997 he had worked along with the petitioner. Further,
witness added that he is not having any proof to show that he along with the petitioner was terminated from service.
Further, witness added that he had no proof to show that any of their juniors are working and there are any vacancies
in the bank. Thus, from the statement of WW2, the claim of the petitioner is not corroborated in material.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3501
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
3502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 issued by the bank as per the settlements entered into by the union with
bank. …
I do not know that bank had filled up the vacancies of non-messengers with the temporary employees in their seniority
depending upon the no. of days they worked. Some persons whose names were above me in the panel were given
regular employment in the bank….
I am not having any documents and I am not having any kind of proof to show that any of my juniors are continuing
in 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3503
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
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
3504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3505
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. K. Yadaiah 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 13th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
3506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri K. Yadaiah
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
WW2: Sri R. Satyanarayana
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Service Certificate for 60 days
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Application Form
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Absorption letter
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of panel list
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 08.08.1992
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 20.08.1993
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)
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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 692.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a87/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/531/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3507
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 87/2001) 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-12012/531/2000– 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 13th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 87/2001
Between:
Sri. C. Krishna,
H.No. 1-1-187/3/18,
Vivekanagar,
Chikadapalli,
Hyderabad 500020.
… 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-12012/531/2000-IR(B.I) dated
26.06.2001 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 C. Krishna 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. 87/2001 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
3508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Respondent Bank at
Secunderabad Main Branch as a non messenger for 199 days. After a gap of some months he was employed at the
same branch as a messenger for 199 days during the period from 4.04.1994 to 29.10.1994. After a gap of some
months again he was employed in the same branch as a messenger for 199 days during the period from 2.05.1995 to
30.11.1995. After a gap of some months he was further employed at the same branch as a messenger for another 199
days during the period from 1.06.1996 to 24.12.1996. He submit that even though sufficient work was available the
officers of the Respondent bank have created artificial breaks in my service to deny the protection to me under the
labour laws. It is submitted that he was doing the work of permanent nature. It is submitted that the management has
utilized his services on a temporary basis for years together. The Respondent bank has resorted to an unfair labour
practice in this regard. He submit that his last drawn salary was Rs. 2800/- per month. 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3509
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, I. 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
areentiones 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
3510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 6I
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3511
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 entionn 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
3512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 CommissionerI for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour CommissionerI 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 h‘s been violated by the bank's Inagement. 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3513
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. Th‘ 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 examined Sri K. Yadaiah as
WW2, in support of his claim, 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 Transfer certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the Caste certificate. Ex.W3 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W4
is the Absorption letter. Ex. W5 is the Service Certificate dated 18.07.1992. Ex. W6 is the Absorption letter. Ex. W7
is the Panel list. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate dated 19.08.1993. Ex. W9 is the Application Form. Ex. W10 is the
Service Certificate dated 29.10.1994. Ex. W11 is the Service Certificate dated 23.04.1995. Ex. W12 is the Service
Certificate dated 2.12.1996.
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. C. Krishna a Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?
III.
Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent
management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?
IV.
To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?
Findings:-
25.
Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,
minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947
read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
3514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3515
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.
3516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3517
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 for appointment in the bank. I did not undergo the regular
selection process required for appointment as a non-messenger in the bank.”
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my 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
3518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
Although the petitioner has also examined WW2 Sri K. Yadaiah, to corroborate his claim, but this witness in his
cross examination has stated that he cannot say on what date he worked along with the petitioner in the bank and
during which month they have worked together in the branch. Further, witness has admitted that he has not filed any
documents to show that during the period he had worked along with the petitioner. Further, witness added that he is
not having any proof to show that he along with the petitioner was terminated from service. Further, witness added
that he had no proof to show that any of their juniors are working and there are any vacancies in the bank. Thus, from
the statement of WW2, the claim of the petitioner is not corroborated in material.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3519
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.
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
3520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 as per the settlements entered into by the union with
bank. …
I do not know that bank prepared the panels depending upon the no.of days of service put in by the temporary
employees. I do not know that the bank had filled up the vacancies of non-messengers with the temporary employees
in their order of seniority depending upon the no. of days they worked. Some persons whose names were above me in
the Panel were given regular appointment in the bank. ….
I am not having any documents and I am not having any kind of proof to show that any of my juniors is continuing in
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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3521
(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
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.
3522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3523
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. Krishna Ex. Non- Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,
dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed
by me on this the 13th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri C. Krishna
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
WW2: Sri K. Yadaiah
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Transfer Certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Caste Certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of Absorption letter
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 18.07.1992
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of Absorption letter
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Panel list
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 19.08.1993
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Application form
Ex.W10:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 29.10.1994
Ex.W11:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 23.04.1995
Ex.W12:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 2.12.1996
3524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 693.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a17/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/320/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2001) 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-12012/320/2000– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 17th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 17/2001
Between:
Sri D. Purnachandar,
S/o D. Ramulu,
H.No. 17-84, S.B.H colony, Uppal
R.R District,
Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3525
And
The Asst. 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-12012/320/2000-IR(B.I) dated
19.04.2001 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 D. Purnachandar, Temporary/Non-Messenger, by way of oral orders 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. 17/2001 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;
3526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 11.09.1986 and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 11 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3527
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".
3528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3529
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
3530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 W15. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support
of his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 transfer certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the caste certificate. Ex.W3 is the certificate dated 25.08.1988 issued
by the Respondent . Ex.W4 is the copy of the certificate dated Nill issued by the Respondent . Ex.W5 is the
certificate dated 21.03.1991. Ex.W6 is the copy of the letter dated 30.03.1989 calling the Petitioner to produce
certificates Ex. W7 copy of the letter dated 4.5.1989 calling the Petitioner for interview. Ex. W8 is the copy of the
letter dated 21.03.1991 and certificate dated 26.10.1992. Ex. W9 is the service certificate. Ex. W10 is the panel list.
Ex.W11 to Ex.W15 are the service certificates.
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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3531
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 D. Purnachandar, 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
3532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3533
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
3534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
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 of selection before my
engagement as temporary messenger in the branch..”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3535
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in a single branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
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
3536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3537
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 and the union in
the year 1989…. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by
the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given
regular appointment in the in the 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
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.
3538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3539
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
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
3540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 D. Purnachandar, 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 17th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri D. Purnachandar
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 certificate dated 25.08.1988 issued by the Respondent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3541
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of certificate dated Nill issued by the Respondent
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of certificate dated 21.03.1991
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of letter dated 30.03.1989 calling the Petitioner to produce certificates
Ex.W7: Photocopy of letter dated4.5.1989 calling the Petitioner for interview
Ex.W8: Photocopy of the letter dated 21.03.1991 and certificate dated 26.10.1992
Ex.W9: Photocopy of orders dated 3.09.1992
Ex.W10: Photocopy of certificates dated 08.01.1997, 07,10.1994 and three certificates of 04.04.1997
Ex.W11
to Ex.W15:
Photocopies of service certificates
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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 694.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a196/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/30/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.196/2001) 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-12012/30/2001– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
3542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 13th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 196/2001
Between:
Sri R. Chandrasekhar,
Vaddepalli(V),
B. Yarragudi(P),
LR Palli(M),
Cuddapah(A.P)-516001.
… Petitioner
And
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Renigunta Road,
Tirupathi(A.P)-516001.
….. 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-12012/30/2001-IR(B.I) dated 06.09.2001
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, Lakkireddy Palli Branch in terminating the
services of Sri R. Chandrasekhar, Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 196/2001 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3543
“ 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 on 1986 to 1997, and has 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
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‖.
3544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement
(Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex
M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In
between there 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3545
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
3546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the
settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was
extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that
while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily
wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3547
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also 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:-
3548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W1 is the Transfer Certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the Call letter for interview. Ex.W3 is the Service Certificate.
Ex.W4 is the Service Certificate.
21.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. Bala Kotaiah and this witness has
exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-
Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement
dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings
dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.
27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-
Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme
Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 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 R.
Chandrasekhar 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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3549
―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
3550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3551
(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."
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
3552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 the bank in any branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had
worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3553
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
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
3554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 and the union 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 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3555
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
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
3556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3557
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.
Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels
and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such
employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the
counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the
available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the
date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in
the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for
absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not
established.
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 R. Chandrasekhar 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.
3558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed
by me on this the 13th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri R. Chandra Sekhar
MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Transfer Certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of call letter for interview.
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
नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 695.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a42/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/425/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 695.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 42/2001) 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-12012/425/2000– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3559
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. 42/2001
Between:
Sri V. Nagaraju,
S/o M. Agraharam, Meenakarmpet (P.O.)
Chittoor Dist.
… 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-12012/425/2000-IR(B.I) dated 8.6.2001, 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 V. Nagaraju, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 42/2001 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
3560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 696.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a179/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/44/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 696.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 179/2001) 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-12012/44/2001– 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. 179/2001
Between:
Sri V. Rabi,
S/o P. Venkatesh,
Konapalli(V), Periyambadi
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3561
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-12012/44/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.8.2001, 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 V. Rabi, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 179/2001 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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 697.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a180/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/52/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
3562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 697.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 180/2001) 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-12012/52/2000– 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. 180/2001
Between:
Sri Valeti Narasimha Rao,
S/o Guravaiah, Main Bazar,
Laxmi Printing Press,
Cumbum, Prakasam District-523230.
… 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-12012/52/2000-IR(B.I) dated 10.8.2001, 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 V. Narasimha Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 180/2001 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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3563
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, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 698.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a181/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/53/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 698—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 181/2001) 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-12012/53/2001– 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. 181/2001
Between:
Sri Sk. Md. Khasim
S/o Meera Saheb, Doruve Bazar,
3564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Karikarlla Bhavi Street,
Kanigiri, 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. 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-12012/53/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.8.2001, 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. Khasim Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 181/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3565
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 699.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a103/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/458/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 103/2001) 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-12012/458/2000– 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. 103/2001
Between:
Sri V.S. Habibulla Nisar,
1/235, Zandastretn and Alur,
516150, Distt. Cuddapah(A.P)
… 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
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/458/2000-IR(B.I) dated
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:
3566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
―Is the State Bank of India, Nandalur Branch justified in terminating Sri V.S. Habibulla Nisar, 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. 103/2001 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!;
(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 Messenger on 1979 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3567
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
absorb them in service.
3568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3569
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
3570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3571
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 W7. 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 interview call letter dated 23.7.1999 Ex.W3 is the letter regarding
absorption of employees. Ex.W4 is the Service Certificate. Ex.W5 is the Service Certificate. Ex.W6 is the letter to
employment exchange by the Respondent. Ex.W7 is the Circular letter dated 14.7.1999.
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
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 V.S. Habibulla Nisar 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.
3572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3573
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
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.
3574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3575
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 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.
3576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3577
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.
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
3578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 entered between the bank and
the 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 settlement in order of their seniority…..
I am not having any papers to show that any of 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 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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3579
(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:-
3580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3581
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 V.S. Habibulla Nisar, 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 V.S. Habibulla Nisar
MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Call letter for interview
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Panel list
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of letter to employment exchange by the Respondent
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Circular letter dated 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
3582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 700.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a251/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/174/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 251/2001) 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-12012/174/2001– 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. 251/2001
Between:
Sri G. Satyanandam,
S/o Bala Guravaiah,
Nallagandla (V & P.O.)
H.M. Padu (M),
Prakasam District.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office Region III,
Tirupathi-517501.
….. Respondent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3583
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-12012/174/2001-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:-
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of
Sri G. Satyanandam, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 251/2001 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, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 701.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a249/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/167/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
3584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 249/2001) 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-12012/167/2001– 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. 249/2001
Between:
Sri V. Emmaniel,
S/o Moses,
T.M.S.B.I,
Timmareddypalli,
Hanumathynipadu (M),
Kanigiri, 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-12012/167/2001-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:-
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of
Sri V. Emmaniel, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 249/2001 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3585
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, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 702.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a250/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–12012/172/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 250/2001) 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-12012/172/2001– 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
3586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 250/2001
Between:
Sri S.K. Mahaboob Basha,
S/o SK. Patchayamiyar,
3rd Ward, Muggubhavi Street,
H.No.3/132,
Kanigiri(P.O. & M) 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-12012/172/2001-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:-
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of
Sri S.K. Mahaboob Basha, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 250/2001 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3587
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, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 703.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
जविाखाृत्तनम ृोटव रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a32/2011) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y–39025/01/2026- vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)-34]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Visakhapatnam Port
Trust and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2026– IR (B-II)-34]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 3rd day of February , 2025
M.P No. 32/2011
Between:
Ch Satyannarayana Naidu
..….Petitioner
AND
The Deputy Conservator,
Visakhapatnam Port Trust,
Visakhapatnam
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri M. B. Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): None
AWARD
This is a petition under Sec.33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by petitioner Sri Ch.
Satyannarayana Naidu against the respndents to direct the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 37,950/- along with
interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment at the rate of 24% p.a.
3588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Respondent did not appear for hearing, hence set ex-parte.
3.
Petitioner and his counsel were absent, inspite of repeated calls. Despite sufficient opportunity, the Petitioner
failed to file any evidence in support of the claim. The claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any evidence.
Therefore, the claim petition is dismissed in absence of the Petitioner.
Order accordingly.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. Nisha, Lower Division Clerk , corrected by me on this the 3rd day of
Februrary, 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, 16 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 704.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ईिा प्रोटेक्िनल जसक्योररटी गाडव प्राइवेट जलजमटेडds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सह-
] -1,ds iapkV
(
6/2025) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. ,y–20013/01/2026- vkbZ- vkj- (
एम-I)]
, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026
S.O. 704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Isha Protectional Security Guard Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen
[No. L-20013/01/2026– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,
MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-6 of 2025
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
1. The Additional Diretor General of Meterology,
Indian Metrological Department, Shivajinagar,
Pune-411005.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3589
2. The Managing Director,
M/s. Isha Protectional Security Guard Pvt. Ltd,
Flat No. 53, Plot No. 275, Subhag Home Sarvardharam Colony,
A Sector, Kolar Road, Bhopal, MP-462042.
And
The Presidint, Dalit Panther,
301, Vrundavan Bhatti Aali
Bavdhan BK,
Pune-411021.
Appearances:
For the first party Management
:
Absent
For the second party workmen
:
Absent
Mumbai, dated the 19th day of December, 2025.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. RLCP/8(18)/2022 dated
03/12/2024 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether the action of M/s. Isha Protectional Security Guards Pvt. Ltd, is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the union is entitledto?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any statement of claim/ evidence in support of his
case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the
Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial Court setting out 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 produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the
workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal
of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent.
In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Since no statement of claim has been filed by the union in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 705.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार सेंरल एजवएिन जमजनस्ट्री; एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मिाराष्ट्र एयरृोटव डेवलृमेंट अ ॉररटी; मेससव
श्रीकृ्ि कंस्ट्रक्िंस; मेससव यूजनयन स्ट्टील; श्री प्रमोि टी. कुलाल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती द्रौृिी
3590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ििर काले के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिम औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
01/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
17.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-39]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 705.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 01/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Central Aviation
Ministry; Airport Authority of India; Maharashtra Airport Development Authority; M/s. Shrikrishna
Constructions; M/s. Union Steel; Mr. Pramod T. Kulal and Smt. Droupadi Dasarath Kale which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.04.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-39]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SOLAPUR
Presided Over by M. R. Kumbhar, Presiding Officer
Reference (IT) No. 01/2017
Exhibit No.:
Dispute between:-
1)
Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
R/o. Govt. of India, New Delhi, Delhi
2)
Manager, Airport Authority of India,
R/o. A. N. Union Office, Port Cabin, New Airport
Colony, Parshiwada, Sahara-Andheri Road,
Mumbai – 400 009.
3)
Airport Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
4)
Office Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
5)
Maharashtra Airport Development Authority,
R/o. World Trade Centre, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai.
6)
M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions,
R/o. Block No. A/505, Yashraj, Bhekrao Nagar,
S. 177, Phursungi, Pune – 412 308.
7)
M/s. Union Steel,
R/o. B-Wing, 11 Floor, Flat No. 206,
Varsha Adarsha Co-op. Housing Society,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3591
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) Mumbai – 400 024.
8)
Mr. Pramod T. Kulal,
R/o. 4-A, Aaji Sainik Nagar, Vijapur Road,
Solapur.
… First Parties
And:-
Smt. Droupadi Dasarath Kale
Age: 44 Years; Occupation: Nil,
Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Hotgi Road,
Solapur.
… Second Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances:-
Advocate for First Parties No.1 To 4:- Mr. S. S. Chiwari & S.S. Bendre
Advocate for First Party No. 5
:- Mr. V. B. Marathe
Advocate for First Party No. 6
:- Mr. G. H. Kulkarni
Advocate for First Party No. 7
:- Mr. B. T. Jadhav
Advocate for First Party No. 8
:- Mr. L. A. Gawali
Advocate for Second Party
:- Mr. V. R. Deshpande
AWARD
(Delivered on:- 06/12/2025)
1.
As per certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune to second Party Smt. Droupadi
Dasarath Kale as per Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the I. D. Act‘ for
brevity). After completion of mandatory 45 days of filing his dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore,
approached this Tribunal and directly filed her Statement of Claim under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act
for adjudication on 07/01/2017 in respect of dispute relating to reinstatement with full back wages and continue
service with status and benefits of permanency or regularization at Solapur Air Port.
2.
The Second Party has filed her Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and contended that she was working with Air
Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port from the year 2008-09 as Sweeper-cum-Labour with
First Party. The Secretary Central Aviation Ministry Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has
managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air Port Authority since its inception. The Second Party further
contended that initially she was appointed by and through Maharashtra Air Port Development Corporation (In short M
A D C) for performing sweeping, cleaning and other manual work at Solapur Air Port. She was being paid Rs. 4,000/-
to 5,000/- by M A D C. The area of Solapur Air Port is 365 Acre. Hence, the work of cleaning and sweeping was of
big nature and is required to be done on day to day basis. Beside the office control tower, other office rooms, godown,
entrance road, internal roads were also required to be clean and maintain properly and for that purpose services of
second party were required on day to day basis.
3.
She further contended that the work of plantation and maintenance of trees, watering to existing plants and
greenery was also done by the second party on daily basis. She used to clean bath-rooms, urinals, etc. etc. on daily
basis. Above work was performing as per direction and instruction of first party No. 3 and 4. According to second
party all above work is of perennial in nature and is of non ending in nature. All the works as stated above are still in
existence and will continue till existence of Air Port at Solapur.
4.
The second party further contended that M A D C i. e. First Party No. 5 was looking after and has total
control over the Solapur Air Port after 2012. The Solapur Air Port was under the control of Air Port In-charge and
office In-charge of Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4 at the time of change of control and at the time of
taking charge, First Party No. 3 and 4, they assured the second party that she will be made permanent and will be
giving pay, Salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employee. Therefore, she kept bonafide belief
towards assurance and continued her above mentioned work at Solapur Air Port under their control. She further
adhere that in the year 2014 second party was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air
Port Solapur that she will be paid Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month wages. However, she did not receive such amount
of wages and she was never given benefit of permanency though she was working continuously from the year 2008-
09. The wages paid to second party were far less than the statutory rate of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the first party
3592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
has committed breach of the statutory provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
Thereafter she was given Identity Card being the employee of the Air Port Authority. She specifically
contended that the attendance was to be marked and recorded by the Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge Solapur
Air Port. Both were having supervisory and managerial control over the second party. As an eye wash and camouflage
services the employees were shown as contract labourer through first parties No. 6, 7 and 8. The said trick was used
as weapon to give go-by or by-pass to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights of the second party.
Than even after the changes the so called labour contractors on paper. The second party was continued on her work as
per earlier system method and was doing some work as before.
5.
According to second party the work of daily nature/permanent nature cannot be allotted to labour contractor
and only work of temporary and continue nature can be allotted to labour contractor. The daily supervision and
control was of first parties No. 3 and 4. The paper work shown of first party to engage second party through labour
contractor was not legal, proper and bonafide. Rather the said paper work was done only with intention to deny
legitimate rights including permanency regularization of second party.
6.
The second party further contended that one Mr. Sajjan Nichal who was working as Manager has instructed
the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C. policy otherwise threatened to terminate their services. So the
second party along with other co-workers took the L. I. C. policy and also becoming members of Trade Unions.
Further in the month of December-2015 the second party and other co-workers were purposely not paid monthly
wages and during that period second party and other co-workers were forced to sign below agreement/affidavit/
document/contract prepared by them, which was not read over by the second party in their language known to them.
The second party and other co-workers were put under tremendous pressure and was subjected to harassing for
signing said agreement but second party remain firm in signing the said arbitrary, ex-party and illegal agreement.
Therefore, she was not paid wages of November and December-2015. Therefore, second party and other co-workers
were not allowed to sign the muster-roll from December-2015 onward. They refused to provide employment to
second party.
7.
According to the second party she was worked since 2008 to December-2015 with Solapur Air Port without
any break. The work performing by her is of perennial in nature and work is still in existence. The first party refused
to give employment only to deprive legitimate right of permanency and regularization.
8.
The second party lastly contended that she has completed more than 240 days service in each and every year
with Solapur Air Port who is the principal employer of the second party. Also first party No. 1-4 are principal
employer of the second party. However, the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provision and
procedure of Law as well as due process of Law. Even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1
to 4 by violating provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act as well as Section 4(c) of Standing Orders and relevant
circulars, regulations etc. etc. At the time of termination the first party has not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay,
nor paid compensation before terminating service. The termination of second party is by way of unfair labour
practices and sole intention is to deprive all benefits of permanency and regularization by violating principles of
natural justice, equity and fair play. The first party have adopted the forbidden policy of hire and fire. Therefore, the
second party issued legal notice dated 07/01/2016 through their advocate. However, the first party have given false
and contrary as well as evasive reply to it. Hence, the second party has filed Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2016 in
Industrial Court, Solapur. However, the said Court returned the complaint to second party with liberty to approach
appropriate authority/or court. Hence, the second party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter
submitted her case for conciliation before Conciliation Officer and Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central),
Pune.
The Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune has issued certificate dated
09/12/2016 as provided under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the second party approached this Court and filed
her statement of claim in detail and prayed that the first party be directed to reinstate the second party at Solapur Air
Port from 28/12/2015 with full back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits and to grant status
and benefit of permanency regularization at Solapur Air Port from the date of completion of 240 days service at first
instance from 2009 with difference in wages and allowances along with 18% interest thereon and for unpaid salary of
month of November, December-2015 with 18% interest thereon till its actual realization.
9.
After submitting the statement of claim second party my Ld. Predecessor issued notice to all the first parties
No. 1 to 8. In response to that Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate with Shri. S. S. Bendre, Ld. Advocate appeared
through First Parties No. 1 to 4 and filed detailed Written Statement at Ex. C-5 on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V.
B. Marthe, Ld. Advocate put his appearance and filed Say and Written Statement at Ex. CA-4. Shri. G. H. Kulkarni,
Ld. Advocate on behalf of first party No. 6, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. L. A.
Gawali, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 8 though put their appearance but failed to file their Written Statement.
Therefore, my Ld. Predecessor by an order dated 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against first party No.
6 to 8.
10.
The first party No. 1 to 4 by filing their Written Statement at Ex. C-5 denied all the contentions, averments
and statements made in the statement of claim. It is specific case of the first party No. 1 to 4 that second party was
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3593
worked with Solapur Air Port are not true and correct. According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was
appointed by contractors that is first party No. 6 to 8. That the contents in respect of control, supervision by Solapur
Air Port since inception are not true and correct. Accordingly, the first party No. 3 was having supervisory control
over the Solapur Air since December-2012. The appointment of second party are denied specifically. The first party
No. 1 to 4 never used to give direction or any instruction for work. However, it is admitted that in respect of control
over the Solapur Air Port after 2012 is with Air Port Authority of India. That the first party No. 1 to 4 never assured
about permanency and regularization or other consequential benefits to the second party because second party was
never under the control of first party No. 1 to 4. The first party No. 1 to 4 never promised to pay an amount of Rs. 8-9
thousands per month towards wages. Then first party No. 1 to 4 never paid any wages to second party. Therefore,
committing any breach of minimum wages does not arise. First party No. 1 to 4 have never issued any identity card to
the second party being an employee of Air Port Authority of India and or of Air Port In-charge never marked
attendance nor kept supervision over the second party.
11.
According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was appointed by various contractors and working with
various contractors. The second party was working under direct control of various contractors that is first party No. 6
to 8 such as Union Steels, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Constructions. The first party No. 1 to 4 have never maintained
muster-roll for attendance and for work performance of second party neither assured at any time regarding
permanency as alleged in Statement of Claim. Moreover, as per contention of Statement of Claim first party No. 1 to 4
are not concerned with present dispute raised by the second party which is vague in nature.
12.
The entire contentions of statement of claim was denied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and contended that they
have not done any act such as termination, retrenchment or any act with intend to deprive legitimate benefit of
permanency or regularization of second party as the first party No. 1 to 4 never appointed the second party. Therefore,
question of illegal termination and violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act at all not arise as alleged against him.
13.
The first party No. 1 to 4 lastly contended that Solapur Air Port was under the control and supervision of M.
A. D. C. till December 2012. Thereafter Air Port is under the control of Air Port Authority of India that is first party
No. 1 to 4 that the first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concern about the appointment made by M. A. D. C. during
their tenure. The first party No. 1 to 4 never appoints any labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port, Air
Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to registered contractor that is first party No. 6 and 8
namely M/s. Shrikishna Construction, Solapur and thereafter M/s. Pramod T. Kulal, Solapur. The Air Port Authority
of India has continued work on contract awarded by M. A. D. C. for operational reasons till appointment of new
contractor. It is specific contention of first party No. 1 to 4 that the second party is appointed by the contractor and
therefore, the second party is removed by the said contractor. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages,
compensation, benefits provided as per Labour Laws and Standing Orders, implement the circulars etc. etc. as the
second party was under the control as well as supervision of first party No. 6 to 8.
Therefore, their services are controlled and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. As the second party has
received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal employer of second party.
Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demands of second party and duty bound to comply all
the statutory provisions of the Labour Laws, standing Orders, Circulars relating with second party and prayed that the
claim against first party No. 1 to 4 may kindly be dismissed.
14.
The first party No. 5 in their Written Statement filed below Ex. CA-4 denied all the contents, averments and
allegations made against first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim are false, baseless. It is further denied
that the second party was working with first party No. 5 as Sweeper-cum-Labourer. Further denied that the second
party was appointed by first party No. 5 at Mumbai for performing work of sweeping and cleaning and was paying
wages of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month.
15.
The first party No. 5 also denied that the first party No. 5 was required to maintain and clean the property at
Solapur. Further denied that the first party No. 5 was to maintain work of plantation and maintenance and of watering
the existing plants to clean the bath-rooms, urinals etc. Further denied that the work is of perennial in nature and not
ending. The contentions of statement of claim are false and baseless. It is fact that the first party No. 5 was looking
after Solapur Air Port till December-2012 as regards first party No. 3 and 4. This party is not concerned with the
contents raised in Statement of Claim against them due to want of knowledge.
16.
The first party No. 5 lastly contended that they have never engaged or appointed the second party at any time
till its tenure. In fact this party used to give work of purely temporarily in nature. Therefore, contractor not only that
the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was got done on contractual basis. Therefore,
there is no employer-employee relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party at any point of time till
December-2012. There is no compliance against the first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim at para No.
20 clearly shows that she is claiming reinstatement with full back wages from 28/12/2015. Moreover, the second party
was admitted that after December-2012, Solapur Air Port was handed over as per Government Resolution of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India. Therefore, first party No. 5 was unnecessarily made party
in this reference. The contents regarding continuous work from 2008-09 till 2010 as this first party never appointed
the second party one Mr. Sajjan Nichal had never instructed the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C.
Policy.
3594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In fact the second party and co-worker of contractor M/s. Union Steel and the said contractor had taken
policy of its workers which is knowing to do with Mr. Sajjan Nichal. Therefore this first party No. 5 is not liable
either to reinstate or to give back wages or any such prayers made against them. Therefore, reference against first
party No. 5 requires to be rejected and prayed to dismiss the same.
17.
The first party No. 6, 7 and 8 though appeared through Ld. Advocates, but failed to file their Written
Statement if any on record. The Ld. Advocates have participated in respective dates of proceedings. My Ld.
Predecessor below Ex. U-1 on 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against these first parties.
18.
From the rival contentions and submissions made in the Statement of Claim as well as Written Statement of
first party No. 1 to 5 issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor below Ex. O-5 on 06/08/2019 and my findings to
them are as under:-
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1)
Whether the Second Party is entitled for the reliefs claimed in
the statement of claim?
… Partly in Affirmative
against First Party
No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
Whether the Second Party proves that there exist an employer-
employee relationship between Second Party and First Party?
… In the negative in
respect of First Party
No. 1 to 5 And
In the affirmative in
respect of First Party
No. 6 to 8
3)
What Award?
… As per final Award.
REASONS
19.
Second Party in respect of their contention raised in Statement of Claim have filed some copies of
documents with List Ex. U-4 comprising of demand notice dated 16/07/2016 given by second party and certificate
dated 09/12/2016 issued by Conciliation Officer, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune. Second party also
filed additional documents along with list Ex. U-11 comprising of copy of attendance register regarding second
party(Exh.U-14), charge report of handing over/taking over charge form Solapur Airport Government of Maharashtra
to Airports Authority of India (Exh. U-15), copy of muster roll maintained by Union Steel (Exh. U-16), copy of
attendance register regarding second party (Exh. U-17) and copy of legal notice issued by second party through Adv.
Kashid (Exh. U-18) and therefore, second party also filed some documents along with list Ex. U-20 comprising of
original entry permit given to second party by Incharge Solapur Air Port and photocopy of attendance register
showing attendance of second party with Solapur Air Port Incharge for the month of September-2008 (Exh. U-21). On
the contrary the first party No. 2 to 4 have also filed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-17 comprising of copy
of Annual Maintenance Contract (civil) 2015-16 for operational Area at Soalpur Airport and on behalf of first party
No. 5 have placed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-13 comprising of copy of letter dated 12/07/2013, copy
of letter dated 07/10/2013, copy of letter dated 31/12/2013, copy of letter dated 30/01/2013, copy of letter dated
26/05/2013, copy of letter dated 08/04/2013, copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2013, statement of
payment and copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2014. The first party No. 6 to 8 neither filed Written
Statement nor produced any document on record.
20.
The second party have filed application at Ex. U-8 for production of documents which was partly allowed by
my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13/08/2019 and directed to produce the documents called for. Again second
party filed another application for production of documents at Ex. U-9 which was partly allowed vide order dated
02/03/2023. Thereafter second party have again filed application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
below Ex. U-10, U-12. Both applications were allowed vide Order dated 09/02/2024.
21.
The second party to prove her claim made in the Statement of Claim have examined herself at Ex. UW-1 by
filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. She was duly cross-examined by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 5
respectively but no cross order passed against the first party No. 6 to 8. Thereafter on behalf of second party filed
evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22. On the contrary the first party No. 1 to 4, 5 and 6 to 8 have not led any oral
evidence before this tribunal.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3595
22.
Conciliation officer as per direction of this tribunal produced copies of documents with list Ex. C-20 that is
conciliation proceedings given by Conciliation officer And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune(containing
102 pages) on 23/8/2024.
Heard Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate for second party and Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with
Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate for first party No. 5, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. G. H.
Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 and on behalf of first party No. 8 Shri. L. A. Gawali chose remained
absent after filing their vakalatnamas. In addition to this Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate filed Written Synopsis
of argument at Ex. U-24 with list of case-laws. On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Bendre,
Ld. Advocate also placed on record Written Synopsis of argument at Ex. C-23 with list of citations. On the contrary
on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate filed notes of
argument at Ex. CA-7 with list of citations. Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 submitted and
admitted that the second party was in the employment of first party No. 6 to 8 they are contractors. Their contract was
terminated at the end of December-2015. Due to non renewal of contract the services of second party was terminated
and first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay two months unpaid salary only and prayed to pass appropriate order.
23.
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate Shri. V. R. Deshpande for second party submitted in detail
as per the contentions of statement of claim. With the help of oral as well as documentary evidence, he further
submitted that the second party was not paid wages of November and December-2015 because the second party and
other co-workers have refused to sign agreement. Therefore, they were not allowed to sign muster roll since
December-2015 onward and also refused to provide employment since then. He further submitted that the second
party and other co-workers have worked from 2008 with Solapur Air Port till end of December-2015 without any
break. He further submitted that the work performed by the second party is of perennial in nature and the said work is
still in existence. However, for no reason from December-2015 the first party have refused to give employment to
second party with intention to deprive second party from their legitimate benefits of permanency.
24.
He further strongly submitted that the second party has completed more than 240 days of service in each and
every year with Solapur Air Port Authority that is first party No. 2 to 4. Solapur Air Port who is the principal
employer of the second party. So also first party No. 1 to 4 are principal employer of the second party. He then
submitted that the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provisions of Law and procedure of
Law and deprived the benefit of permanency even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1 to
4. Solapur Air Port authority have failed to observe the provision of Section 25-F and provisions of Section 4(c) of the
Standing Orders relevant circulars as well as Resolutions passed from time to time. He put his great emphasis on the
issue of termination and submitted that the first party have not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay, compensation
before terminating services of the second party. Termination of second party is hastily, abruptly and by engaging into
unfair labour practices with sole intention to deprive from benefit of permanency. Therefore, termination is illegal and
not bonafide. The first party also violated principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. They have adopted
forbidden policy of hire and fire.
25.
Then he invited my attention towards legal notice dated 07/01/2016 issued through their advocate to which
second party received false and contrary and evasive reply then he submitted that the second party and other co-
workers have filed complaint of unfair labour practices bearing ULP No. 35/2016 before this Court. However, the
Industrial Court, Solapur returned the said complaint with liberty to approach appropriate forum. Therefore, second
party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter submitted case for conciliation with Regional
Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune and after filing application to implement first party No. 6 to 8 they were
made parties to the proceedings. He further submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune had
issued certificate dated 09/12/2016 as per Section 2A of the I. D. Act to file this reference before this Tribunal.
Therefore, reference made by the second party is maintainable.
26.
Then he invited my attention towards the order below Ex. U-8 and U-9 and submitted that though as per
direction of this Tribunal regarding muster-roll, payment register, labour contract agreements, licence etc. etc., but
first party failed to produce the same. Then he invited my attention towards oral evidence of the second party at Ex.
UW-1 and put his great emphasis on the list of document at Ex. U-11 and submitted that the second party is workman
and workers does not have any custody of original documents. Therefore, second party has filed documents and call
for the said documents from the custody of first party but in spite of directions to produce by this Tribunal first party
have not produced documents. Then he invited my attention towards order below Ex. U-12 and submitted as per the
permission of this Tribunal. The second party produced some copies of documents along with list Ex. U-12 which is
at Ex. U-14 to U-18 i. e. copies of muster rolls, documents of handling over the Air Port Management, legal notice
etc.. Those are required to be read in evidence. Then filed some more copies of documents with list Ex. U-20 and U-
21 respectively. He then submitted that the second party as proved his case that the termination of service from
28/12/2015 is illegal and act of unfair labour practices. Therefore, second party is entitled for the permanency along
with consequential benefits and from the month of January 2009. According to Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate
oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of second party have gone unchallenged, unrebutted or uncontroverted.
Therefore, reference of second party is required to be allowed and prayed to allow the same.
3596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27.
He lastly submitted that the first party has not lead its own oral/documentary evidence to prove their defense,
objection and contentions in Written Statement. First parties have neither produced any document in their custody
even after directions from this Tribunal nor producing their own evidence. So also first party No. 6 to 8 have also not
lead their own evidence nor entered into witness box. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the first
party. He further submitted that as per settled Law, pleadings and written statement is not evidence. The first party
have taken adjournments but failed to file their own evidence. Therefore, defense cannot be liable to be considered for
want of their evidence and prayed to allow reference with all prayers made therein.
28.
He relied upon the following citations:-
i) Iswar Bhai C Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 1341)
ii) Reportable judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 20/12/2024
and relied upon observations at para No. 27 and 28 which reads as -
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead
by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can
reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice
and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a
positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of
labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed
by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following
extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith.
However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they
have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same
would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.
iii)
Then he relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court between – The Mysore Electrical
Industries Ltd. Vs. Engineering And General Workers Union decided on 09/10/2023 in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2023
(L-RES).
iv) Then he relied upon observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 (Shripal &
Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad) and relied upon observations in para No. 15 which reads as under:-
15.
It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several
years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the
Employer‘s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference
under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally,
workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as
dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a
recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India 3 in the following paragraphs:
―22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the
rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding
the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only
mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often
face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3597
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral
to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their
roles mirror those of regular employees. Such mis-classification deprives workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen
in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions
being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not
only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such
as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This
lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.‖
v)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajranagar
Coal Mines Workers’ Union in Civil Appeal No. 4092-4093/2024 relied upon observations at para No. 22 and 23
which reads as under:-
―22. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to
a conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated
previously, we do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However,
as the case was argued at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals.
What we have referred to here in-above are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High
Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of
work, continuous working of the workmen, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals
filed by the appellant.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and
therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages‖.
vi)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer
I/R to Mangmat. of FCI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2417 – 2418 of 2014 and relied upon observations at para No. 34.
―34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when
there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give
direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-hoc/temporary
worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would
be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize such a person, only on the
basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may amount to backdoor entry into the
service which is an anathema to Art. 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when
the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment
Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself
under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court
are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-
regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases
and would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the
equality by upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision‖.
vii) He lastly relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court between the Air India Statutory corporation
Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. decided on 06/12/1996, Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-34 of 1996 and prayed
to allow the reference of section party with all prayers made therein.
29.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate submitted in detail as per
the written statement filed on record. He further submitted that the second party prepared the present reference against
stoppage of their work by the contractor and claiming the benefit of permanency and regularization at Solapur Air
Port from the completion of their 240 days of their service at first instance i. e. December 2009 and also claimed
difference of that first wages along with 18% p. a. interest therein. He invited my attention towards the Written
Statement filed on record and contention therein and submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 mainly contended that
3598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of the back door entry who come in the employment by using back
door entry must go through back door. He then submitted that Solapur Air Port Authority was under the control and
supervision of M. A. D. C. first party No. 5 till December-2012 and thereafter under control of Air Port Authority of
India that is first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concerned about appointment
made by M. A. D. C. during their tenure. He put his great emphasis on the document filed by the second party and
submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 never appoint any Labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port then
he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to the registered contractor
that is first party No. 6 to 8. The second party was appointed by the contractor and therefore, second party is removed
by the said contractor. Therefore, the first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages, compensation, benefits as per the
provisions of Labour Laws.
30.
Then he submitted that the second party was under the control of the first party No. 6 to 8 contractor at
relevant time. Therefore, second party was working for the contractor. Moreover, work of second party was controlled
and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. All these facts were admitted by the second party in their cross-
examination.
31.
He lastly submitted that the second party was never appointed by the first party No. 1 to 4 in the year 2009
whereas they were appointed by contractor namely Union Steel, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Construction i. e. first
party No. 6 to 8 for day to day work of cleaning and maintenance work at Solapur Air Port. The said fact is admitted
by the second party in their cross-examination. Therefore, the employer for second party is of first party No. 6 to 8.
The second party was never controlled nor paid by the M. A. D. C. The demand vouchers were prepared and
maintained by the M. A. D. C. Their work at Solapur Air Port was stopped by the first party No. 6 to 8 that is
contractor. The attendance register produced on record, it does not bear signature and office seal of Air Port Authority
of India nor appeared seal of Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India never
published any advertisement for appointment or never initiated procedure for recruitment of second party nor issued
any identity card as claimed by the second party. Therefore, the present reference is not tenable and maintainable as
per Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. He invited my attention towards definition of retrenchment and
submitted that the termination of workman service due to non renewal of fixed term of contract or the termination of
such contract as per its term does not constitute retrenchment. He further submitted that the service contract of first
party No. 6 to 8 was completed, its tenure and same was not continued and hence, the work allotted through
contractor to second party come to an end. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between first party
No. 1 to 4 and second party nor there is no any appointment nor made any payment nor made any supervision or
control. Therefore, question of violation of Section 25-F and illegal termination does not arise and also question of
payment of compensation does not arise and prayed to reject reference of second party.
32.
He further adhere that the second party can approach directly to the M. A. D. C. i. e. first party No. 5 as
initial period of 240 days service was completed prior to December 2012 at Solapur Air Port. Therefore, the present
reference at all not tenable and maintainable against first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the same.
33.
He relied upon various observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court in which Ex.
C-23 page (No. 7 A) State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293 wherein it is held that, ―Appointment –
Nature of appointment: There is estoppel against challenging nature of appointment once having duly accepted the
same: Having accepted contractual appointment, respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their
appointment.
B]
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 01 wherein in para No. 34 and 36 it is held that –
34. …………..
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with
the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the
same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes
to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis,
the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he
would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3599
India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless
the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment'
in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould
the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to
continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden
of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
36.
While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent,
courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual
in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be
true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some
employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would
not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who
has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will
be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a
contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power,
that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or
temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be
getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After
all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept
a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context
that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned
knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The
claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be
considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making
regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been
working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the
nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the
procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of
constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
C]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal and others (2011) SCC 429 wherein in para No. 8 of the said judgment it
is held that -
8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in
pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had
been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16
should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an
employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of
compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process,
can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be `litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years,
let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not
working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing
that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the
cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or
contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for
framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.
3600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
part time temporary employees.
(v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
D]
State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247
E]
Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 300
F]
K. K. Suresh V. Food Corpn. Of India (2018) 17 SCC 641
G]
Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 1417
H]
Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Anr. AIR 2014 SC
1848
I]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001
SC
3527
J]
Jt. Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors. [2025 (185)
FLR 864 SC]
And prayed that observations relied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and the disputed question
therein is similar to that of the dispute raised by the second party in present case in hand. Therefore,
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are helpful to the case of the first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to
reject the claim of second party against First Party No. 1 to 4.
34.
On the contrary Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 5 vehemently submitted that
the present reference is referred by the Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune by its certificate
dated 09/12/2016 which is placed on record for determination of dispute between parties. The second party
raised demand on 01/07/2016 for their reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages
from completion of 240 days in service. He read over certificate issued by Regional Commissioner (Central)
Pune and submitted that the second party raised dispute under Section 2A of the I. D. Act in regarding
termination from service by the Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted certificate was issued as
mandatory of completion of 45 days of filing/raising dispute by second party before Conciliation Officer as
provided under the I. D. Act then he read over Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and Written Statement filed on
record at Ex. CA-4.
35.
He put his great emphasis on the issue that there was no employer-employee relationship between
first party No. 5 and second party. He further submitted that first party No. 5 used to give work purely
temporary in nature through contractor not only that the said work was not perennial in nature and as such
the said work was got done on contract basis. In the present reference contractors are made parties as first
party No. 6 to 8. Therefore, it is clear that the second party is admitting that she was appointing by and
through contractor. Her claim if any is against first party No. 6 to 8 then he invited my attention towards
issues at Ex. O-7 and submitted that the second party miserably failed to prove issues framed by this
Tribunal.
36.
He lastly submitted that the second party adduced her oral evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief at Ex. UW-1 also filed copies of attendance register at Ex. U-14 for the period from
March-2014 to June-2014 which appears no seal and signature at Ex. U-15 letter of handing over Solapur
Air Port from Government of Maharashtra to the Air Port Authority of India dated 17/12/2012 at Ex. U-16.
Muster Roll of Union Steel i. e. First Party No. 7 for the period August 2008 to February 2015 and lastly at
Ex. U-17 attendance register for the period 02/02/2015 to 29/12/2015 which also not appears signature or
stamp. All these documents are self explanatory to establish his relationship of the employer-employee
between first party No. 6 to 8 and second party. First Party No. 5 unnecessarily made party in the present
reference on the point of mis-joinder of necessary party, reference against first party No. 5 is required to be
rejected and prayed to reject the same.
37.
Then he submitted that it is well settled Law that unless the employer-employee relationship
between contract labour i. e. second party and the first party No. 5 is proved the claim of second party is not
maintainable. The burden to prove the relationship is obviously on the second party and hence, second party
miserably failed to bring on record any documentary evidence regarding their appointment orders, wages
paid and supervision and controlled by the employer. Therefore, the second party failed to prove that there
existence any employer-employee relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party and prayed
that to reject the claim of second party against first party No. 5.
38.
He relied upon the observations in -
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3601
i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (3) SCC 514
“wherein it is held that, “Employment of the workmen for doing a particular piece of work is at the instance of the
producer or the merchants on an ad hoc basis or job to job basis and, thus, the same may not lead to the conclusion
that relationship of employer and employee has came into being. ….”
ii)
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Taj Sats Air Caterers Ltd. And Another,
reported in 2019 (161) FLR 109 (Bombay High Court).
iii)
Rajesh Shah Vs. Their Workmen, United Workers Association & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) MhL. J. 943
(Bombay High Court).
iv)
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Ramchandran and Ors.,
reported in 2023 (1) SCC 463 (Supreme
Court), and prayed that the observations relied upon and on behalf of first party No. 5 as well as first party No. 1 to
4 also are helpful to case of first party and prayed to pass appropriate order.
39.
On the contrary Shri. G. H. Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 submitted that in spite of given
repeated intimation first party No. 6 failed to give material instructions and documents and they have neither filed
W. S. nor led any evidence or filed any document and lastly prayed to pass appropriate order.
40.
On the contrary Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate fairly submitted that the first party No. 7 is required to
pay unpaid wages of two months from November-2015 and December 2015 and prayed to pass appropriate order.
41.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 8 none appeared nor submitted any oral submissions
reference proceeded ex-party since beginning.
42.
Having heard oral submissions of all the Ld. Advocates. I have gone through the contents of Statement of
Claim in which second party prayed to reinstate with continuity of service and full back wages along with benefits
of permanency/regularization in service since 2009. I have gone through all the demands raised on behalf of
second party and documents placed by the second party as well as the first party and the Regional Commissioner of
Labour (Central) Pune – cum – Conciliation Officer with list Ex. C-20 then I have gone through oral evidence led
by the second party and first party No. 1 to 5. First Party No. 6 to 8 chose remained absent. They have neither filed
their W. S. nor conducted cross-examination or not filed any copies of documents. I have also gone through written
synopsis of the argument filed on behalf of second party as well as first party No. 1 to 5. I have carefully gone
through observations relied by both the parties and considered oral submissions of the Ld. Advocates.
43.
The second party approached this Tribunal as per the certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 09/12/2016. The second party in the Statement of Claim prayed
mainly to reinstate herself at Ex. UW-1 and reiterated entire contentions of Statement of claim as it is on oath.
However, in her cross-examination conducted by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 by Shri. S. H. Chiwari, Ld.
Advocate some admission are brought on record. They are useful to reproduce as under:-
“हे खरे की, २००८ सािी मी प्रिमिः सोिापर दवमानिळावर काम स्रु केिे व त्यावेळी सज्जन दनचळ हे मॅनेजर होिे. हे खरे की, काय करायचे त्याबाबिचे अूेश श्री.
दनचळ हे ूेि होिे व केिेल्या कामाचा पगार ूेखीि िेच ूेि होिे. हे खरे की, श्री दनचळ हे महाराष्ट्र दवमान प्रादिकरर्ाचे ऄदिकारी होिे. हे खरे की, मी कामावर िागिी त्यासाठी
नोकरभरिीसाठी क्ठिीही जादहराि दवमानिळ प्रादिकरर्ाने व एऄरपो म ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याने दूिी नव्हिी. हे खरे की, सोिापर दवमानिळावर प्रमोू क्िाि, य्दनयन स् ीि व
श्रीकृष्ट्र् कस्रक्शन या ठेकेूारांच्या ऄदिपत्याखािी मी करि होिे. हे खरे की, सोिापर दवमानिळ हे एऄरपो म ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याच्या ऄदिपत्याखािी २०१२ सािापासरन अिे
अहे. एऄरपो म ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याच्या ऄदिपत्याखािी सोिापर दवमानिळ अल्यानंिर नोकरभरिीसाठी त्यांनी जादहराि दूिी नव्हिी िे मिा मादहि नाही. हे खरे की, एऄरपो म
ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याने मिा नोकरी ूेण्यासंूभामि माझी म्िाखि घेििी नव्हिी व मिा क्ठिेही नेमर्रक पत्र दूिे नव्हिे. हे हर्र्े खरे की, प्रमोू क्िाि, य्दनयन स् ीि व श्रीकृष्ट्र्ा
कस्रक्शन हे ठेकेूार दवमानिळादशवाय आिर दठकार्ीही मिा काम करण्यासाठी पाठवि होिे. हे हर्र्े खरे अहे की, मिा नोकरीि कायम करुन घेवर ऄसे २०१२ सािानंिर एऄरपो म
ऄिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याने किीही सांदगििेिे नाही. हे खरे की, एऄरपो म ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याने मिा क्ठिेही ओळखपत्र दूिेिे नाही. हे खरे की, मी सोिापर दवमानिळावर २००८
सािापासरन काम करि होिे त्यावेळी माझे हजेरीचे रेकॉ म श्री. दनचळ व ईपरोक्त नमरू ठेकेूार हेच ठेवि होिे. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, माझी पगाराची रक्कम माझे बँक खात्याि जमा
केिी जाि ऄसे. माझा ूरमहा पगार श्री. दनचळ साहेब ूेि होिे.
प्रश्न: ि्हािा पगार दूल्यासंूभामि पावत्या ि्ही ूाखि करण्यास ियार अहाि का ?
ईत्तर: क्ठल्याही पावत्या ूेण्याि येि नव्हत्या.
पगार दूल्यासंूभामि कागूावर साही घेण्याि येि ऄसे व िो कागू श्री. दनचळ साहेब त्यांच्याक े ठेवरन घेि ऄसि. हे खरे की, ठेकेूार यांनी मिा काम ूेर्े बंू केिे होिे. हे खरे की,
मी ूाखि केिेल्या हजेरीपत्रकावर सामनेवािा क्र. १ से ४ च्या कोर्ाही ऄदिका-याच्या सह्या व दशक्के नाहीि िसेच िे हजेरीपत्रके प िाळर्ी केल्याबाबि शेरे ूेखीि नाहीि.
हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, दवमानिळाच्या िाब्याि ३६५ एकर जमीन ऄसल्याचे मी खो े सांगि अहे. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, सामनेवािा क्र. १ िे ४ च्या ऄदिका-यादवरुध्ू च्कीची
वक्तव्ये करून मी खो े प्रदिज्ञापत्र ूाखि केिे अहे. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, सामनेवािा क्र. ४ यांचेदवरुध्ू मी च्कीच्या मागण्या केल्या अहेि. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मी
दवमानिळावरीि काम बंू झाल्यानंिर पासपो म ऑफीसिा व आिर दठकार्ी काम केिे व आिर दठकार्ी सध्या काम करि अहे. हे खरे की, सामनेवािा क्र. १ िे ४ ने दूिेिे क्ठिेही
ओळखपत्र मी ऄदभिेखावर ूाखि केिेिे नाही. हे खरे की, दवमानिळ प्रादिकरर् केंद्रशासनाच्या ऄदिपत्याखािी काम करिे व त्यांना केंद्रशासनाच्या सवम कायूे व दनयम िागर
अहेि. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मी खो ी साक्ष ूेि अहे.
3602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
हे खरे अहे की मी ूाखि केिेिा पास प्रिम पक्ष क्र. ५ चे ऄदिकारी श्री. सज्जन दनचळ यांनी दूिे अहे. हे खरे अहे की िो पास दवमानिळाच्या पररसराि िात्प्रिा
प्रवेशाकररिा ूेण्याि अिेिा अहे. हे खरे अहे की त्या पासची म्ूि दू. ३०/०४/२०१० पयंि होिी. हे खरे अहे की प्रिम पक्षकार क्र. १ िे ४ यांनी मिा दू. ३१/१२/२०१५ पयंि
दवमानिळ पररसराि प्रवेशाकररिा िसाच पास दूिा होिा. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मिा ूेण्याि अिेल्या प्रवेशाच्या पासचा ओळखपत्र ऄसा च्कीचा ऄिम िाव्न त्याचा ओळखपत्र
हर््न वापर करून प्रस्ि्िची खो ी केस ूाखि केिी अहे.”
Thereafter on behalf of first party No. 5 Smt. Gangishetty, Advocate holding for Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld.
Advocate for first party No. 5 conducted cross-examination and some more vital admissions are brought on record.
Therefore, they are also useful to reproduce the same which are as under:-
“मी ऄदशदक्षि अहे. मी स्वच्छिेचे काम करि होिे. २०१२ सािापयंि मी एऄरपो म ऑिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद या यांचेक े काम करि होिे. हे खरे की, संिोष कौिगी हे
मॅनेजर होिे व त्यांच्या हािाखािी मी काम करि होिे. हे खरे की, संिोष कौिगी हे प्रिम पक्ष क्र. १ िे ४ यांचे मॅनेजर होिे. २०१२ सािानंिर प्रिम पक्ष क्र. ५ चा दवमानिळाशी
संबंि रादहिा नाही िे मिा मादहि नाही. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मी ठेकेूारामाफमिच दवमानिळावर काम करि होिे. कामाच्या दठकार्ी ठेकेूार येि जाि होिे िे मिा मादहि नाही. हे
हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मिा ठेकेूाराक रन पगार दमळि ऄसे. हे खरे की, २०१२ सािानंिर मी प्रिम पक्ष क्र. १ िे ४ यांचेक े काम करि होिे. मिा ज्यावेळी कामावरुन काढण्याि
अिे त्यावेळी मी प्रिम पक्ष क्र. १ िे ४ यांचेक े कामािा होिे ऄसे माझे हर्र्े अहे हे खरे की, माझी मागर्ी प्रिम पक्ष क्र. १ िे ४ यांचेदवरुध्ूच अहे. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की,
प्रिम पक्ष क्र. ५ चा प्रस्ि्ि प्रकरर्ाशी क्ठिाही संबंि नाही. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, दवमानिळावर काम करण्यास स्रुवाि केल्यापासरन िे काम बंू करेपयंि मी ठेकेूारामाफमिच काम
करि होिे.
हे खरे की, मी नमरू केिेिी एि.अय.सी पॉदिसी माझे वैयदक्तक नावाने होिी. हे खरे की, सज्जन दनचळ यांचेदवरुध्ू मी क्ठिी कायूेशीर कारवाइ केिी नाही. स्विःहून सांगिे की,
त्यांना नो ीस दूिी होिी. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, श्री दनचळ यांचेदवरुध्ू मी केिेिे अरोप दनरािार ऄसरन प्रस्ि्िच्या प्रकरर्ाशी काहीही एक संबंि नाही व िे सवम अरोप खो े
अहेि.”
Thereafter on behalf of second party filed evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22.
On the contrary first party No. 1 to 8 have not examined any independent witness to prove their
contentions, averments and objections raised in their Written Statement.
44.
My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex. O-5 including issue of employer-employee relationship between
the first party and second party and the entitlements of the reliefs claimed by the second party. According to second
party she was working from 2008-2009 with Air Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port
as Sweeper-cum-Labourer with first party. According to second party Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air
Port since its inception. It is specific stand of second party that she was appointed by and through M. A. D. C. for
performing sweeping, cleaning and other managerial work at Solapur Air Port since 2008-2009 on the wages of Rs.
4,000/- to 5,000/-. She was further used to work plantation and maintenance and watering to existence plants,
greenery was also done by second party. She also used to cleaning bathrooms, urinals on daily basis. Therefore,
work done by second party was perennial in nature and not ending in nature. According to second party the said
work is still in existence at Solapur Air Port. However, second party also admits that first party No. 5 was looking
after and has total control over the Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4. At the time of changing of control
and taking charge, the first party No. 3 and 4 have assured second party that she will be made permanent and will
be pay salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employees. It is further case of the second party that
she was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port regarding she will be paid Rs.
8,000/- to 9,000/- towards wages but amount was not received to second party. It is also contention of the second
party that she was given identity card being an employee of the Air Port Authority. She used to mark attendance
which was recorded by Air Port In-charge, Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 5
have continuously and consistently kept supervision and control over the second party. Alternatively it is the case of
the second party that as an eye wash camouflage, the services employed were shown as contract labour through
first party No. 6, 7 and 8 for using a weapon to give go-by to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights
of permanency and regularization of services. In short the second party claimed that she was and is employee of
first party No. 1 to 4.
45.
While deciding the core issue of employer-employee relationship between the second party and the first
party No. 1 to 4, the second party though claimed she was an employee of first party No. 1 to 4 and she have
submitted that the copies of documents at Ex. U-4, U-11 and U-20 respectively claiming that she was in the
employment since 2008 till 28/12/2015, that means more than approximately for 7 years of the service. It is
pertinent to note that the second party have not filed on record crucial documents mainly her appointment letter,
salary slip, documents relating to show her leave at relevant time and any contribution paid towards P. F. or E. S. I.
C. etc. etc. on record. It is oral contention of the second party that her services were supervised and managed by
first party No. 1 to 4 whereas she was examined herself below Ex. UW-1. In her cross-examination she admits that
she was appoint in the employment of Solapur Air Port at that time no notice was published in the newspaper
regarding the recruitment of the employees. Surprisingly she admits that one Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and
M/s. Shrikrishna Construction Contractor through whom she was appointed. She further admits that the Solapur
Air Port is transferred to Air Port Authority of India since 2012. The said Air Port of India never published any
time any advertisement in newspaper regarding recruitment of the employees.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3603
Further she admits that she was not called for interview by the Air Port Authority of India nor she was
issued appointment letter. Surprisingly, she admits that Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and M/s. Shrikrishna
Constriction Contractor who are first party No. 6 to 8 used to send her another work during her employment. She
admits that after 2012 the officers of Air Port Authority of India never assured her regarding the permanency in
the employment. Further Air Port of India have not issued any identity card. All these vital admissions are self
explanatory to decide relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4. Further she admits that she was
given the entry pass at Air Port Solapur. The period of entry pass was expired on 30/04/2010 and first party No. 1
to 4 have issued same entry pass to second party for the period ending on 31/12/2015.
46.
Admittedly, no appointment orders are issued, no payment slips are issued to the second party nor
termination order issued to the second party. In her cross-examination conduced by and on behalf of first party No.
5 she surprisingly admits that her claim is against only first party No. 1 to 4. She denied that since her employment
till her termination she worked through contractor. The Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 2A (2) of
the I. D. Act conducted conciliation proceedings and after its failure issued certificate to second party to approach
to appropriate forum. The documents which are placed on record mainly the demand notice dated 16/07/2016
certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune and copy of entry pass valid till 30/04/2010
and entry pass issued by Solapur Air Port valid till 31/12/2015 and one page of attendance register having no
signature, seal or name of the employer.
47.
It is true that the second party filed application at Ex. U-8 for direction to produce some copies of
documents at Ex. U-8 and U-9. Both the applications are partly allowed by my Ld. Predecessor by orders dated
13/03/2019 and 02/03/2023. But first party failed to produce those documents. Surprisingly, the second party filed
application at Ex. U-11 for permission to lead secondary evidence before the Court. The said application was
allowed and second party is permitted to lead secondary evidence. Therefore, on behalf of second party filed list of
documents at Ex. U-11 and at Ex. U-14 copy of attendance register for the period 09/03/2014 to 18/06/2014 does
not bear name of employer or signature of any concerned supervisor/manager or authorized officer. At Ex. U-15
the second party himself to file document showing that handing over/taking over of Solapur Air Port of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India in pursuance to G. R. Dated 04/12/2012 the first party
was transferred to Air Port Authority of India in the year 2012.
Most surprising the document which is filed
by the second party by way secondary evidence at Ex. U-16, it is the photocopy of attendance register showing
muster was kept by Union Steel First Party No. 6 for the period August-2008 to February-2015 at Ex. U-17 is
another attendance register for the period 02/02/2015 to 31/12/2015 which does not bear name of employer,
signature of any manager or authorized officer nor filed on record any document vouchers or bank statement
showing that the second party was paid directly by first party No. 1 to 4 whereas her claim of reinstatement of
continuity of service and back wages against first party No. 1 to 4. The documents which are placed on record are
most clearly showing that the second party was in the employment of Union Steel Contractor first party No. 6 since
2008. Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn ajainst first party No. 1 to 5. Two corroborate documents her
cross-examination below Ex. UW-1 is more than sufficient to establish the relationship between the second party
and first party No. 1 to 4 those documents loudly speaking that the second party was in the employment through
contractor that is first party No. 6 to 8.
48.
It should not be ignored that the first party No. 2 to 4 filed the copy of annual maintenance contract (Civil)
2015-2016 for operational area at Solapur Air Port Page No. 1 to 154 at Ex. C-17. The contract agreement dated
20/10/2015 signed between the Air Port Authority of India and M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions for supplying
manpower to first party No. 1 to 4. Considering all these documents mainly in the light of oral admissions given by
the second party in her cross-examination shows that she was never directly appointed by first party No. 1 to 4 nor
first party No. 5 at any point of time. Whereas documents herself placed on record showing that she was employed
through contractor namely Union Steel since 2008. Therefore, she was employee of contractor and not of first
party No. 1 to 4 as principal employer. These documents shows that there is no relationship between the second
party and first party No. 1 to 5 at any point of time.
49.
It is needless to mention here that in view of the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor and evidence led by
the second party it is admitted position that the second party was well aware that she was appointed through
contractor. However, she was contended that the said contract was sham and bogus and camouflage. As per
Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, there was no declaration regarding sham
and bogus contract unless and until it is declared by the appropriate authority that the said contract was sham and
bogus, the second party cannot claim any benefits as mentioned in her prayer clause of Statement of Claim against
first party No. 1 to 5. The entire burden was cast upon second party to establish there is employer-employee
relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4 and 5. However, though the burden cast upon second
party but she miserably failed to file on record cogent documentary evidence such as her appointment order, wages
paid by the first party No. 1 to 4 & 5 or she was issued any notice in her tenure of employment or any such
document which establishes the relationship between the first party No. 1 to 5 but the most relevant document
material are missing from the record.
50.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
3604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Nilgiri (cited supra) where it is observed that unless it is proved by an appointment letter, salary etc. etc., it cannot
be said that there is any employer-employee relationship, moreover, unless there is reference to whether the
contract between the first party No. 1 and others regarding contract is sham and bogus, Tribunal cannot be
decided without referring such type of dispute to the Tribunal. On the contrary from the record first party No. 6 to
8 since beginning are the contractors.
51.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of International Air Port Authority of India Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers’ Union 2009 (123) FLR. has laid down that the Tribunal has to comply tests like
who pays the salary, who has power to remove/dismiss from service, or to initiate disciplinary action. In short who
has direct control and supervision over employees to decide whether the contract is nominal or only on paper. It is
further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unless there is invocation under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Tribunal cannot direct the principal employer to absorb or regularize services of the
contract labour. It is also held that the supervision and control of principal employer will not be only test to hold
that they are direct employees of the principal employer.
52.
On behalf of first party No. 5 so many observations are relied to show that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the first party and first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. In all the observations in sum and
substance are similar as discussed above. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is claim of the second party that she
was terminated on 28/12/2015 by the first party No. 1 to 4. In fact it is brought on record that she was contract
labour. Her termination appears to be non renewal of contract with first party No. 1 to 5. Therefore, termination
does not constituted retrenchment also. Therefore, she is not entitled to get relief of reinstatement with continuity
of service and to regularize in the employment since 2009 against first party No. 1 to 5. In absence of any
employer-employee relationship though the second party examined herself but failed to establish that there is
relationship of employer-employee between first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. Therefore, claim of
reinstatement and back wages against first party no. 1 to 5 required to be answered in negative.
As second party failed to prove the relationship between herself and first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, issue
is required to be answered in the negative.
53.
The another issue is in respect of entitlement of relief of second party. It is the case of the first party No. 1
to 4 since beginning that the first party No. 6 to 8 appointed the second party paid the salary, supervise and
manage her services, she was allotted work in different places other than first party. It is also contention that the
first party No. 6 to 8 she received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 and the first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal
employer of the second party. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demand of second
party and they are duty bound to comply all the statutory provisions of Labour Laws, Standing Orders, Circulars
related with second party’s employment.
54.
During the course of argument Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 fairly submitted that
during crucial period of termination of second party was not paid salary for the month of November and
December-2015. The contract with first party No. 1 to 4 came to an end on 31/12/2015 due to non renewal of
contract they are unable to provide employment to second party. However, they are ready to pay unpaid wages of
two months. It is pertinent to note here that though the second party in her statement of claim contended that work
which she was performed still in existence at first party No. 1 to 4. However, to show this fact neither filed any
document nor examined any independent witness to establish that the work is available. Mere allegations in the
Statement of Claim are not sufficient to hold that the work is available.
55.
At the same time it should not be ignored that admittedly since 2008 till 20/12/2015 she was working as
sweeping, cleaning and due to non renewal of contract, she was terminated without issuing notice by first party No.
6 to 8. At the most, she is entitled to get two months salary and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments that if reinstatement is not possible then concerned employee should be given lump-sum compensation
considering her 8 years service through contractor, notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other legal dues as
per applicable Law to the second party by first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- to second party, it will be met the ends of justice and no prejudice will be caused either to first party No.
6 to 8 or to the second party.
56.
Therefore, in this angle of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case I come to conclusion that
second party is entitled to get lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final of her claim. Therefore,
issue regarding entitlement should required to be answered in partly in affirmative and I answer the same in partly
in affirmative. I find much substance in the statement made on behalf first party No. 1 to 4 and first party No. 5,
the observations relied by the first parties are helpful to decide the issue of contract labour by this Tribunal.
Though on behalf of second party some observations are relied but they are not helpful to the facts and
circumstances of the present case in hand. With due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court I mentioned here that
the observations relied by the second party are not helpful to grant relief claimed by her.
57.
Therefore, reference needs to be answered partly in affirmative against the first party No. 6 to 8 only. With
this, I proceed to pass following award:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3605
AWARD
1)
Reference (IT) No. 01/2017 is answered partly in affirmative against first party No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
First Party No. 6 to 8 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to second party within
period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of award.
3)
No order as to costs.
4)
Copies of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.
5)
Proceedings is closed.
Date: 06-12-2025
M. R. KUMBHAR, Presiding Officer
amj/-
Assistant Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Solapur.
Argued on: 05/12/2025
Dictated on: 05 & 06/12/2025
Transcribed on: 08, 09 & 10/12/2025
Checked & Signed on: 11/12/2025
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 706.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार सेंरल एजवएिन जमजनस्ट्री; एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मिाराष्ट्र एयरृोटव डेवलृमेंट अ ॉररटी; मेससव
श्रीकृ्ि कंस्ट्रक्िंस; मेससव यूजनयन स्ट्टील; श्री प्रमोि टी. कुलाल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती रुजक्मिी
जिवललगप्ृा सनाके के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिम औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
02/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
17.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-40]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 706.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 02/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Central Aviation
Ministry; Airport Authority of India; Maharashtra Airport Development Authority; M/s. Shrikrishna
Constructions; M/s. Union Steel; Mr. Pramod T. Kulal and Smt. Rukimini Shivilingappa Sanake which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.04.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026– IR (M)-40]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SOLAPUR
Presided Over by M. R. Kumbhar, Presiding Officer
Reference (IT) No. 02/2017
Exhibit No.:
3606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dispute between:-
1)
Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
R/o. Govt. of India, New Delhi, Delhi
2)
Manager, Airport Authority of India,
R/o. A. N. Union Office, Port Cabin, New Airport
Colony, Parshiwada, Sahara-Andheri Road,
Mumbai – 400 009.
3)
Airport Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
4)
Office Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
5)
Maharashtra Airport Development Authority,
R/o. World Trade Centre, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai.
6)
M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions,
R/o. Block No. A/505, Yashraj, Bhekrao Nagar,
S. 177, Phursungi, Pune – 412 308.
7)
M/s. Union Steel,
R/o. B-Wing, 11 Floor, Flat No. 206,
Varsha Adarsha Co-op. Housing Society,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) Mumbai – 400 024.
8)
Mr. Pramod T. Kulal,
R/o. 4-A, Aaji Sainik Nagar, Vijapur Road,
Solapur.
… First Parties
And:-
Smt. Rukimini Shivilingappa Sanake
Age: 36 Years; Occupation : Nil;
R/o. Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Hotigi Road,
Solapur
… Second Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances:-
Advocate for First Parties No.1 To 4 :- Mr. S. S. Chiwari & S.S. Bendre
Advocate for First Party No. 5
:- Mr. V. B. Marathe
Advocate for First Party No. 6
:- Mr. G. H. Kulkarni
Advocate for First Party No. 7
:- Mr. B. T. Jadhav
Advocate for First Party No. 8
:- Mr. L. A. Gawali
Advocate for Second Party
:- Mr. V. R. Deshpande
AWARD
(Delivered on:- 06/12/2025)
1.
As per certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune to second Party Smt. Rukimini
Shivilingappa Sanake as per Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the I. D. Act‘
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3607
for brevity). After completion of mandatory 45 days of filing his dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore,
approached this Tribunal and directly filed her Statement of Claim under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act
for adjudication on 07/02/2017 in respect of dispute relating to reinstatement with full back wages and continue
service with status and benefits of permanency or regularization at Solapur Air Port.
2.
The Second Party has filed her Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and contended that she was working with Air
Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port from the year 2008-09 as Sweeper-cum-Labour with
First Party. The Secretary Central Aviation Ministry Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has
managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air Port Authority since its inception. The Second Party further
contended that initially she was appointed by and through Maharashtra Air Port Development Corporation (In short M
A D C) for performing sweeping, cleaning and other manual work at Solapur Air Port. She was being paid Rs. 4,000/-
to 5,000/- by M A D C. The area of Solapur Air Port is 365 Acre. Hence, the work of cleaning and sweeping was of
big nature and is required to be done on day to day basis. Beside the office control tower, other office rooms, godown,
entrance road, internal roads were also required to be clean and maintain properly and for that purpose services of
second party were required on day to day basis.
3.
She further contended that the work of plantation and maintenance of trees, watering to existing plants and
greenery was also done by the second party on daily basis. She used to clean bath-rooms, urinals, etc. etc. on daily
basis. Above work was performing as per direction and instruction of first party No. 3 and 4. According to second
party all above work is of perennial in nature and is of non ending in nature. All the works as stated above are still in
existence and will continue till existence of Air Port at Solapur.
4.
The second party further contended that M A D C i. e. First Party No. 5 was looking after and has total
control over the Solapur Air Port after 2012. The Solapur Air Port was under the control of Air Port In-charge and
office In-charge of Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4 at the time of change of control and at the time of
taking charge, First Party No. 3 and 4, they assured the second party that she will be made permanent and will be
giving pay, Salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employee. Therefore, she kept bonafide belief
towards assurance and continued her above mentioned work at Solapur Air Port under their control. She further
adhere that in the year 2014 second party was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air
Port Solapur that she will be paid Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month wages. However, she did not receive such amount
of wages and she was never given benefit of permanency though she was working continuously from the year 2008-
09. The wages paid to second party were far less than the statutory rate of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the first party
has committed breach of the statutory provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
Thereafter she was given Identity Card being the employee of the Air Port Authority. She specifically
contended that the attendance was to be marked and recorded by the Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge Solapur
Air Port. Both were having supervisory and managerial control over the second party. As an eye wash and camouflage
services the employees were shown as contract labourer through first parties No. 6, 7 and 8. The said trick was used
as weapon to give go-by or by-pass to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights of the second party.
Than even after the changes the so called labour contractors on paper. The second party was continued on her work as
per earlier system method and was doing some work as before.
5.
According to second party the work of daily nature/permanent nature cannot be allotted to labour contractor
and only work of temporary and continue nature can be allotted to labour contractor. The daily supervision and
control was of first parties No. 3 and 4. The paper work shown of first party to engage second party through labour
contractor was not legal, proper and bonafide. Rather the said paper work was done only with intention to deny
legitimate rights including permanency regularization of second party.
6.
The second party further contended that one Mr. Sajjan Nichal who was working as Manager has instructed
the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C. policy otherwise threatened to terminate their services. So the
second party along with other co-workers took the L. I. C. policy and also becoming members of Trade Unions.
Further in the month of December-2015 the second party and other co-workers were purposely not paid monthly
wages and during that period second party and other co-workers were forced to sign below agreement/affidavit/
document/contract prepared by them, which was not read over by the second party in their language known to them.
The second party and other co-workers were put under tremendous pressure and was subjected to harassing for
signing said agreement but second party remain firm in signing the said arbitrary, ex-party and illegal agreement.
Therefore, she was not paid wages of November and December-2015. Therefore, second party and other co-workers
were not allowed to sign the muster-roll from December-2015 onward. They refused to provide employment to
second party.
7.
According to the second party she was worked since 2008 to December-2015 with Solapur Air Port without
any break. The work performing by her is of perennial in nature and work is still in existence. The first party refused
to give employment only to deprive legitimate right of permanency and regularization.
8.
The second party lastly contended that she has completed more than 240 days service in each and every year
with Solapur Air Port who is the principal employer of the second party. Also first party No. 1-4 are principal
employer of the second party. However, the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provision and
3608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
procedure of Law as well as due process of Law. Even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1
to 4 by violating provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act as well as Section 4(c) of Standing Orders and relevant
circulars, regulations etc. etc. At the time of termination the first party has not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay,
nor paid compensation before terminating service. The termination of second party is by way of unfair labour
practices and sole intention is to deprive all benefits of permanency and regularization by violating principles of
natural justice, equity and fair play. The first party have adopted the forbidden policy of hire and fire. Therefore, the
second party issued legal notice dated 07/01/2016 through their advocate. However, the first party have given false
and contrary as well as evasive reply to it. Hence, the second party has filed Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2016 in
Industrial Court, Solapur. However, the said Court returned the complaint to second party with liberty to approach
appropriate authority/or court. Hence, the second party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter
submitted her case for conciliation before Conciliation Officer and Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central),
Pune.
The Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune has issued certificate dated
09/12/2016 as provided under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the second party approached this Court and filed
her statement of claim in detail and prayed that the first party be directed to reinstate the second party at Solapur Air
Port from 28/12/2015 with full back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits and to grant status
and benefit of permanency regularization at Solapur Air Port from the date of completion of 240 days service at first
instance from 2009 with difference in wages and allowances along with 18% interest thereon and for unpaid salary of
month of November, December-2015 with 18% interest thereon till its actual realization.
9.
After submitting the statement of claim second party my Ld. Predecessor issued notice to all the first parties
No. 1 to 8. In response to that Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate with Shri. S. S. Bendre, Ld. Advocate appeared
through First Parties No. 1 to 4 and filed detailed Written Statement at Ex. C-5 on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V.
B. Marthe, Ld. Advocate put his appearance and filed Say and Written Statement at Ex. CA-4. Shri. G. H. Kulkarni,
Ld. Advocate on behalf of first party No. 6, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and
Shri. L. A. Gawali, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 8 though put their appearance but failed to file their Written
Statement. Therefore, my Ld. Predecessor by an order dated 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against
first party No. 6 to 8.
10.
The first party No. 1 to 4 by filing their Written Statement at Ex. C-5 denied all the contentions, averments
and statements made in the statement of claim. It is specific case of the first party No. 1 to 4 that second party was
worked with Solapur Air Port are not true and correct. According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was
appointed by contractors that is first party No. 6 to 8. That the contents in respect of control, supervision by Solapur
Air Port since inception are not true and correct. Accordingly, the first party No. 3 was having supervisory control
over the Solapur Air since December-2012. The appointment of second party are denied specifically. The first party
No. 1 to 4 never used to give direction or any instruction for work. However, it is admitted that in respect of control
over the Solapur Air Port after 2012 is with Air Port Authority of India. That the first party No. 1 to 4 never assured
about permanency and regularization or other consequential benefits to the second party because second party was
never under the control of first party No. 1 to 4. The first party No. 1 to 4 never promised to pay an amount of Rs. 8-9
thousands per month towards wages. Then first party No. 1 to 4 never paid any wages to second party. Therefore,
committing any breach of minimum wages does not arise. First party No. 1 to 4 have never issued any identity card to
the second party being an employee of Air Port Authority of India and or of Air Port In-charge never marked
attendance nor kept supervision over the second party.
11.
According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was appointed by various contractors and working with
various contractors. The second party was working under direct control of various contractors that is first party No. 6
to 8 such as Union Steels, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Constructions. The first party No. 1 to 4 have never maintained
muster-roll for attendance and for work performance of second party neither assured at any time regarding
permanency as alleged in Statement of Claim. Moreover, as per contention of Statement of Claim first party No. 1 to 4
are not concerned with present dispute raised by the second party which is vague in nature.
12.
The entire contentions of statement of claim was denied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and contended that they
have not done any act such as termination, retrenchment or any act with intend to deprive legitimate benefit of
permanency or regularization of second party as the first party No. 1 to 4 never appointed the second party. Therefore,
question of illegal termination and violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act at all not arise as alleged against him.
13.
The first party No. 1 to 4 lastly contended that Solapur Air Port was under the control and supervision of M.
A. D. C. till December 2012. Thereafter Air Port is under the control of Air Port Authority of India that is first party
No. 1 to 4 that the first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concern about the appointment made by M. A. D. C. during
their tenure. The first party No. 1 to 4 never appoints any labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port, Air
Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to registered contractor that is first party No. 6 and 8
namely M/s. Shrikishna Construction, Solapur and thereafter M/s. Pramod T. Kulal, Solapur. The Air Port Authority
of India has continued work on contract awarded by M. A. D. C. for operational reasons till appointment of new
contractor. It is specific contention of first party No. 1 to 4 that the second party is appointed by the contractor and
therefore, the second party is removed by the said contractor. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3609
compensation, benefits provided as per Labour Laws and Standing Orders, implement the circulars etc. etc. as the
second party was under the control as well as supervision of first party No. 6 to 8.
Therefore, their services are controlled and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. As the second party has
received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal employer of second party.
Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demands of second party and duty bound to comply all
the statutory provisions of the Labour Laws, standing Orders, Circulars relating with second party and prayed that the
claim against first party No. 1 to 4 may kindly be dismissed.
14.
The first party No. 5 in their Written Statement filed below Ex. CA-4 denied all the contents, averments and
allegations made against first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim are false, baseless. It is further denied
that the second party was working with first party No. 5 as Sweeper-cum-Labourer. Further denied that the second
party was appointed by first party No. 5 at Mumbai for performing work of sweeping and cleaning and was paying
wages of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month.
15.
The first party No. 5 also denied that the first party No. 5 was required to maintain and clean the property at
Solapur. Further denied that the first party No. 5 was to maintain work of plantation and maintenance and of watering
the existing plants to clean the bath-rooms, urinals etc. Further denied that the work is of perennial in nature and not
ending. The contentions of statement of claim are false and baseless. It is fact that the first party No. 5 was looking
after Solapur Air Port till December-2012 as regards first party No. 3 and 4. This party is not concerned with the
contents raised in Statement of Claim against them due to want of knowledge.
16.
The first party No. 5 lastly contended that they have never engaged or appointed the second party at any time
till its tenure. In fact this party used to give work of purely temporarily in nature. Therefore, contractor not only that
the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was got done on contractual basis. Therefore,
there is no employer-employee relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party at any point of time till
December-2012. There is no compliance against the first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim at para No.
20 clearly shows that she is claiming reinstatement with full back wages from 28/12/2015. Moreover, the second party
was admitted that after December-2012, Solapur Air Port was handed over as per Government Resolution of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India. Therefore, first party No. 5 was unnecessarily made party
in this reference. The contents regarding continuous work from 2008-09 till 2010 as this first party never appointed
the second party one Mr. Sajjan Nichal had never instructed the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C.
Policy.
In fact the second party and co-worker of contractor M/s. Union Steel and the said contractor had taken
policy of its workers which is knowing to do with Mr. Sajjan Nichal. Therefore this first party No. 5 is not liable
either to reinstate or to give back wages or any such prayers made against them. Therefore, reference against first
party No. 5 requires to be rejected and prayed to dismiss the same.
17.
The first party No. 6, 7 and 8 though appeared through Ld. Advocates, but failed to file their Written
Statement if any on record. The Ld. Advocates have participated in respective dates of proceedings. My Ld.
Predecessor below Ex. U-1 on 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against these first parties.
18.
From the rival contentions and submissions made in the Statement of Claim as well as Written Statement of
first party No. 1 to 5 issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor below Ex. O-5 on 06/08/2019 and my findings to
them are as under:-
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1)
Whether the Second Party is entitled for the reliefs claimed in
the statement of claim?
… Partly in Affirmative
against First Party
No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
Whether the Second Party proves that there exist an employer-
employee relationship between Second Party and First Party?
… In the negative in
respect of First Party
No. 1 to 5 And
In the affirmative in
respect of First Party
No. 6 to 8
3)
What Award?
… As per final Award.
3610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
19.
Second Party in respect of their contention raised in Statement of Claim have filed some copies of documents
with List Ex. U-4 comprising of demand notice dated 16/07/2016 given by second party and certificate dated
09/12/2016 issued by Conciliation Officer, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune. Second party also filed
additional documents along with list Ex. U-11 comprising of copy of attendance register regarding second
party(Exh.U-14), charge report of handing over/taking over charge form Solapur Airport Government of Maharashtra
to Airports Authority of India (Exh. U-15), copy of muster roll maintained by Union Steel (Exh. U-16), copy of
attendance register regarding second party (Exh. U-17) and copy of legal notice issued by second party through Adv.
Kashid (Exh. U-18) and therefore, second party also filed some documents along with list Ex. U-20 comprising of
original entry permit given to second party by Incharge Solapur Air Port and photocopy of attendance register
showing attendance of second party with Solapur Air Port Incharge for the month of September-2008 (Exh. U-21). On
the contrary the first party No. 2 to 4 have also filed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-17 comprising of
copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (civil) 2015-16 for operational Area at Soalpur Airport and on behalf of first
party No. 5 have placed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-13 comprising of copy of letter dated 12/07/2013,
copy of letter dated 07/10/2013, copy of letter dated 31/12/2013, copy of letter dated 30/01/2013, copy of letter dated
26/05/2013, copy of letter dated 08/04/2013, copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2013, statement of
payment and copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2014. The first party No. 6 to 8 neither filed Written
Statement nor produced any document on record.
20.
The second party have filed application at Ex. U-8 for production of documents which was partly allowed by
my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13/08/2019 and directed to produce the documents called for. Again second
party filed another application for production of documents at Ex. U-9 which was partly allowed vide order dated
02/03/2023. Thereafter second party have again filed application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
below Ex. U-10, U-12. Both applications were allowed vide Order dated 09/02/2024.
21.
The second party to prove her claim made in the Statement of Claim have examined herself at Ex. UW-1 by
filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. She was duly cross-examined by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 5
respectively but no cross order passed against the first party No. 6 to 8. Thereafter on behalf of second party filed
evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22. On the contrary the first party No. 1 to 4, 5 and 6 to 8 have not led any oral
evidence before this tribunal.
22.
Conciliation officer as per direction of this tribunal produced copies of documents with list Ex. C-20 that is
conciliation proceedings given by Conciliation officer And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune(containing
102 pages) on 23/8/2024.
Heard Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate for second party and Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with
Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate for first party No. 5, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. G. H.
Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 and on behalf of first party No. 8 Shri. L. A. Gawali chose remained
absent after filing their vakalatnamas. In addition to this Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate filed Written Synopsis
of argument at Ex. U-24 with list of case-laws. On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Bendre,
Ld. Advocate also placed on record Written Synopsis of argument at Ex. C-23 with list of citations. On the contrary
on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate filed notes of
argument at Ex. CA-7 with list of citations. Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 submitted and
admitted that the second party was in the employment of first party No. 6 to 8 they are contractors. Their contract was
terminated at the end of December-2015. Due to non renewal of contract the services of second party was terminated
and first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay two months unpaid salary only and prayed to pass appropriate order.
23.
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate Shri. V. R. Deshpande for second party submitted in detail
as per the contentions of statement of claim. With the help of oral as well as documentary evidence, he further
submitted that the second party was not paid wages of November and December-2015 because the second party and
other co-workers have refused to sign agreement. Therefore, they were not allowed to sign muster roll since
December-2015 onward and also refused to provide employment since then. He further submitted that the second
party and other co-workers have worked from 2008 with Solapur Air Port till end of December-2015 without any
break. He further submitted that the work performed by the second party is of perennial in nature and the said work is
still in existence. However, for no reason from December-2015 the first party have refused to give employment to
second party with intention to deprive second party from their legitimate benefits of permanency.
24.
He further strongly submitted that the second party has completed more than 240 days of service in each and
every year with Solapur Air Port Authority that is first party No. 2 to 4. Solapur Air Port who is the principal
employer of the second party. So also first party No. 1 to 4 are principal employer of the second party. He then
submitted that the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provisions of Law and procedure of
Law and deprived the benefit of permanency even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1 to
4. Solapur Air Port authority have failed to observe the provision of Section 25-F and provisions of Section 4(c) of the
Standing Orders relevant circulars as well as Resolutions passed from time to time. He put his great emphasis on the
issue of termination and submitted that the first party have not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay, compensation
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3611
before terminating services of the second party. Termination of second party is hastily, abruptly and by engaging into
unfair labour practices with sole intention to deprive from benefit of permanency. Therefore, termination is illegal and
not bonafide. The first party also violated principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. They have adopted
forbidden policy of hire and fire.
25.
Then he invited my attention towards legal notice dated 07/01/2016 issued through their advocate to which
second party received false and contrary and evasive reply then he submitted that the second party and other co-
workers have filed complaint of unfair labour practices bearing ULP No. 35/2016 before this Court. However, the
Industrial Court, Solapur returned the said complaint with liberty to approach appropriate forum. Therefore, second
party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter submitted case for conciliation with Regional
Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune and after filing application to implement first party No. 6 to 8 they were
made parties to the proceedings. He further submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune had
issued certificate dated 09/12/2016 as per Section 2A of the I. D. Act to file this reference before this Tribunal.
Therefore, reference made by the second party is maintainable.
26.
Then he invited my attention towards the order below Ex. U-8 and U-9 and submitted that though as per
direction of this Tribunal regarding muster-roll, payment register, labour contract agreements, licence etc. etc., but
first party failed to produce the same. Then he invited my attention towards oral evidence of the second party at Ex.
UW-1 and put his great emphasis on the list of document at Ex. U-11 and submitted that the second party is workman
and workers does not have any custody of original documents. Therefore, second party has filed documents and call
for the said documents from the custody of first party but in spite of directions to produce by this Tribunal first party
have not produced documents. Then he invited my attention towards order below Ex. U-12 and submitted as per the
permission of this Tribunal. The second party produced some copies of documents along with list Ex. U-12 which is
at Ex. U-14 to U-18 i. e. copies of muster rolls, documents of handling over the Air Port Management, legal notice
etc.. Those are required to be read in evidence. Then filed some more copies of documents with list Ex. U-20 and U-
21 respectively. He then submitted that the second party as proved his case that the termination of service from
28/12/2015 is illegal and act of unfair labour practices. Therefore, second party is entitled for the permanency along
with consequential benefits and from the month of January 2009. According to Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate
oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of second party have gone unchallenged, unrebutted or uncontroverted.
Therefore, reference of second party is required to be allowed and prayed to allow the same.
27.
He lastly submitted that the first party has not lead its own oral/documentary evidence to prove their defense,
objection and contentions in Written Statement. First parties have neither produced any document in their custody
even after directions from this Tribunal nor producing their own evidence. So also first party No. 6 to 8 have also not
lead their own evidence nor entered into witness box. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the first
party. He further submitted that as per settled Law, pleadings and written statement is not evidence. The first party
have taken adjournments but failed to file their own evidence. Therefore, defense cannot be liable to be considered for
want of their evidence and prayed to allow reference with all prayers made therein.
28.
He relied upon the following citations:-
i) Iswar Bhai C Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 1341)
ii) Reportable judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 20/12/2024
and relied upon observations at para No. 27 and 28 which reads as -
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead
by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can
reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice
and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a
positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of
labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed
by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following
extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith.
However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they
have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same
would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.
iii)
Then he relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court between – The Mysore Electrical
Industries Ltd. Vs. Engineering And General Workers Union decided on 09/10/2023 in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2023
3612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(L-RES).
iv) Then he relied upon observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 (Shripal &
Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad) and relied upon observations in para No. 15 which reads as under:-
15.
It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several
years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the
Employer‘s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference
under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally,
workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as
dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a
recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India 3 in the following paragraphs:
―22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the
rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding
the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only
mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often
face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral
to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their
roles mirror those of regular employees. Such mis-classification deprives workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen
in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions
being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not
only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such
as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This
lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.‖
v)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajranagar
Coal Mines Workers’ Union in Civil Appeal No. 4092-4093/2024 relied upon observations at para No. 22 and 23
which reads as under:-
―22. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to
a conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated
previously, we do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However,
as the case was argued at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals.
What we have referred to here in-above are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High
Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of
work, continuous working of the workmen, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals
filed by the appellant.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and
therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages‖.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3613
vi)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer
I/R to Mangmat. of FCI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2417 – 2418 of 2014 and relied upon observations at para No. 34.
―34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that
when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not
give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-
hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for
regularization would be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize
such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may
amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Art. 14 of the Constitution. Further,
such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility
requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that
similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and
the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction
of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of the left over
workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative
of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by
upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision‖.
vii) He lastly relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court between the Air India Statutory corporation
Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. decided on 06/12/1996, Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-34 of 1996 and prayed
to allow the reference of section party with all prayers made therein.
29.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate submitted in detail as per
the written statement filed on record. He further submitted that the second party prepared the present reference against
stoppage of their work by the contractor and claiming the benefit of permanency and regularization at Solapur Air
Port from the completion of their 240 days of their service at first instance i. e. December 2009 and also claimed
difference of that first wages along with 18% p. a. interest therein. He invited my attention towards the Written
Statement filed on record and contention therein and submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 mainly contended that
the reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of the back door entry who come in the employment by using back
door entry must go through back door. He then submitted that Solapur Air Port Authority was under the control and
supervision of M. A. D. C. first party No. 5 till December-2012 and thereafter under control of Air Port Authority of
India that is first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concerned about appointment
made by M. A. D. C. during their tenure. He put his great emphasis on the document filed by the second party and
submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 never appoint any Labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port then
he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to the registered contractor
that is first party No. 6 to 8. The second party was appointed by the contractor and therefore, second party is removed
by the said contractor. Therefore, the first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages, compensation, benefits as per the
provisions of Labour Laws.
30.
Then he submitted that the second party was under the control of the first party No. 6 to 8 contractor at
relevant time. Therefore, second party was working for the contractor. Moreover, work of second party was controlled
and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. All these facts were admitted by the second party in their cross-
examination.
31.
He lastly submitted that the second party was never appointed by the first party No. 1 to 4 in the year 2009
whereas they were appointed by contractor namely Union Steel, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Construction i. e. first
party No. 6 to 8 for day to day work of cleaning and maintenance work at Solapur Air Port. The said fact is admitted
by the second party in their cross-examination. Therefore, the employer for second party is of first party No. 6 to 8.
The second party was never controlled nor paid by the M. A. D. C. The demand vouchers were prepared and
maintained by the M. A. D. C. Their work at Solapur Air Port was stopped by the first party No. 6 to 8 that is
contractor. The attendance register produced on record, it does not bear signature and office seal of Air Port Authority
of India nor appeared seal of Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India never
published any advertisement for appointment or never initiated procedure for recruitment of second party nor issued
any identity card as claimed by the second party. Therefore, the present reference is not tenable and maintainable as
per Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. He invited my attention towards definition of retrenchment and
submitted that the termination of workman service due to non renewal of fixed term of contract or the termination of
such contract as per its term does not constitute retrenchment. He further submitted that the service contract of first
party No. 6 to 8 was completed, its tenure and same was not continued and hence, the work allotted through
contractor to second party come to an end. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between first party
No. 1 to 4 and second party nor there is no any appointment nor made any payment nor made any supervision or
control. Therefore, question of violation of Section 25-F and illegal termination does not arise and also question of
payment of compensation does not arise and prayed to reject reference of second party.
3614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
32.
He further adhere that the second party can approach directly to the M. A. D. C. i. e. first party No. 5 as
initial period of 240 days service was completed prior to December 2012 at Solapur Air Port. Therefore, the present
reference at all not tenable and maintainable against first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the same.
33.
He relied upon various observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court in which Ex.
C-23 page (No. 7 A) State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293 wherein it is held that, ―Appointment –
Nature of appointment: There is estoppel against challenging nature of appointment once having duly accepted the
same: Having accepted contractual appointment, respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their
appointment.
B]
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 01 wherein in para No. 34 and 36 it is held that -
34. …………..
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with
the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the
same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes
to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis,
the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he
would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless
the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment'
in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould
the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to
continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden
of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
36.
While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent,
courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual
in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be
true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some
employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would
not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who
has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will
be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a
contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power,
that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or
temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be
getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After
all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept
a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context
that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned
knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The
claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be
considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making
regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been
working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3615
nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the
procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of
constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
C]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal and others (2011) SCC 429 wherein in para No. 8 of the said judgment it
is held that -
8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in
pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had
been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16
should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an
employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of
compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process,
can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be `litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years,
let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not
working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing
that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the
cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or
contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for
framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
part time temporary employees.
(v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
D]
State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247
E]
Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 300
F]
K. K. Suresh V. Food Corpn. Of India (2018) 17 SCC
641
G]
Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 1417
H]
Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Anr. AIR 2014 SC 1848
I]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001 SC
3527
J]
Jt. Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors. [2025 (185) FLR
864 SC]
And prayed that observations relied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and the disputed question therein
is similar to that of the dispute raised by the second party in present case in hand. Therefore, observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court are helpful to the case of the first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the claim of second
party against First Party No. 1 to 4.
34.
On the contrary Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 5 vehemently submitted that the
present reference is referred by the Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune by its certificate dated
09/12/2016 which is placed on record for determination of dispute between parties. The second party raised
demand on 01/07/2016 for their reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages from
completion of 240 days in service. He read over certificate issued by Regional Commissioner (Central) Pune and
submitted that the second party raised dispute under Section 2A of the I. D. Act in regarding termination from
service by the Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted certificate was issued as mandatory of completion of
45 days of filing/raising dispute by second party before Conciliation Officer as provided under the I. D. Act then he
read over Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and Written Statement filed on record at Ex. CA-4.
3616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
35.
He put his great emphasis on the issue that there was no employer-employee relationship between first
party No. 5 and second party. He further submitted that first party No. 5 used to give work purely temporary in
nature through contractor not only that the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was
got done on contract basis. In the present reference contractors are made parties as first party No. 6 to 8. Therefore,
it is clear that the second party is admitting that she was appointing by and through contractor. Her claim if any is
against first party No. 6 to 8 then he invited my attention towards issues at Ex. O-7 and submitted that the second
party miserably failed to prove issues framed by this Tribunal.
36.
He lastly submitted that the second party adduced her oral evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief at Ex. UW-1 also filed copies of attendance register at Ex. U-14 for the period from March-
2014 to June-2014 which appears no seal and signature at Ex. U-15 letter of handing over Solapur Air Port from
Government of Maharashtra to the Air Port Authority of India dated 17/12/2012 at Ex. U-16. Muster Roll of Union
Steel i. e. First Party No. 7 for the period August 2008 to February 2015 and lastly at Ex. U-17 attendance register
for the period 02/02/2015 to 29/12/2015 which also not appears signature or stamp. All these documents are self
explanatory to establish his relationship of the employer-employee between first party No. 6 to 8 and second party.
First Party No. 5 unnecessarily made party in the present reference on the point of mis-joinder of necessary party,
reference against first party No. 5 is required to be rejected and prayed to reject the same.
37.
Then he submitted that it is well settled Law that unless the employer-employee relationship between
contract labour i. e. second party and the first party No. 5 is proved the claim of second party is not maintainable.
The burden to prove the relationship is obviously on the second party and hence, second party miserably failed to
bring on record any documentary evidence regarding their appointment orders, wages paid and supervision and
controlled by the employer. Therefore, the second party failed to prove that there existence any employer-employee
relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party and prayed that to reject the claim of second party
against first party No. 5.
38.
He relied upon the observations in -
i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (3) SCC 514
“wherein it is held that, “Employment of the workmen for doing a particular piece of work is at the instance of the
producer or the merchants on an ad hoc basis or job to job basis and, thus, the same may not lead to the conclusion
that relationship of employer and employee has came into being. ….”
ii)
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Taj Sats Air Caterers Ltd. And Another,
reported in 2019 (161) FLR 109 (Bombay High Court).
iii)
Rajesh Shah Vs. Their Workmen, United Workers Association & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) MhL. J. 943
(Bombay High Court).
iv)
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Ramchandran and Ors., reported in 2023 (1) SCC 463 (Supreme Court), and
prayed that the observations relied upon and on behalf of first party No. 5 as well as first party No. 1 to 4 also are
helpful to case of first party and prayed to pass appropriate order.
39.
On the contrary Shri. G. H. Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 submitted that in spite of given
repeated intimation first party No. 6 failed to give material instructions and documents and they have neither filed
W. S. nor led any evidence or filed any document and lastly prayed to pass appropriate order.
40.
On the contrary Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate fairly submitted that the first party No. 7 is required to
pay unpaid wages of two months from November-2015 and December 2015 and prayed to pass appropriate order.
41.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 8 none appeared nor submitted any oral submissions
reference proceeded ex-party since beginning.
42.
Having heard oral submissions of all the Ld. Advocates. I have gone through the contents of Statement of
Claim in which second party prayed to reinstate with continuity of service and full back wages along with benefits
of permanency/regularization in service since 2009. I have gone through all the demands raised on behalf of
second party and documents placed by the second party as well as the first party and the Regional Commissioner of
Labour (Central) Pune – cum – Conciliation Officer with list Ex. C-20 then I have gone through oral evidence led
by the second party and first party No. 1 to 5. First Party No. 6 to 8 chose remained absent. They have neither filed
their W. S. nor conducted cross-examination or not filed any copies of documents. I have also gone through written
synopsis of the argument filed on behalf of second party as well as first party No. 1 to 5. I have carefully gone
through observations relied by both the parties and considered oral submissions of the Ld. Advocates.
43.
The second party approached this Tribunal as per the certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 09/12/2016. The second party in the Statement of Claim prayed
mainly to reinstate herself at Ex. UW-1 and reiterated entire contentions of Statement of claim as it is on oath.
However, in her cross-examination conducted by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 by Shri. S. H. Chiwari, Ld.
Advocate some admission are brought on record. They are useful to reproduce as under:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3617
“हे खरे की, २००८ सािी मी प्रिमिः सोिापर दवमानिळावर काम स्रु केिे व त्यावेळी सज्जन दनचळ हे मॅनेजर होिे. हे खरे की, काय करायचे त्याबाबिचे अूेश श्री.
दनचळ हे ूेि होिे व केिेल्या कामाचा पगार ूेखीि िेच ूेि होिे. हे खरे की, श्री दनचळ हे महाराष्ट्र दवमान प्रादिकरर्ाचे ऄदिकारी होिे. हे खरे की, मी कामावर िागिी त्यासाठी
नोकरभरिीसाठी क्ठिीही जादहराि दवमानिळ प्रादिकरर्ाने व एऄरपो म ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याने दूिी नव्हिी. हे खरे की, सोिापर दवमानिळावर प्रमोू क्िाि, य्दनयन स् ीि व
श्रीकृष्ट्र् कस्रक्शन या ठेकेूारांच्या ऄदिपत्याखािी मी करि होिे. हे खरे की, सोिापर दवमानिळ हे एऄरपो म ॲिाॅॅरर ी ऑफ आंद याच्या ऄदिपत्याखािी २०१२ सािापासरन अिे
अहे. एऄरपो म ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याच्या ऄदिपत्याखािी सोिापर दवमानिळ अल्यानंिर नोकरभरिीसाठी त्यांनी जादहराि दूिी नव्हिी िे मिा मादहि नाही. हे खरे की, एऄरपो म
ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याने मिा नोकरी ूेण्यासंूभामि माझी म्िाखि घेििी नव्हिी व मिा क्ठिेही नेमर्रक पत्र दूिे नव्हिे. हे हर्र्े खरे की, प्रमोू क्िाि, य्दनयन स् ीि व श्रीकृष्ट्र्ा
कस्रक्शन हे ठेकेूार दवमानिळादशवाय आिर दठकार्ीही मिा काम करण्यासाठी पाठवि होिे. हे हर्र्े खरे अहे की, मिा नोकरीि कायम करुन घेवर ऄसे २०१२ सािानंिर एऄरपो म
ऄिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याने किीही सांदगििेिे नाही. हे खरे की, एऄरपो म ॲिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद याने मिा क्ठिेही ओळखपत्र दूिेिे नाही. हे खरे की, मी सोिापर दवमानिळावर २००८
सािापासरन काम करि होिे त्यावेळी माझे हजेरीचे रेकॉ म श्री. दनचळ व ईपरोक्त नमरू ठेकेूार हेच ठेवि होिे. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, माझी पगाराची रक्कम माझे बँक खात्याि जमा
केिी जाि ऄसे. माझा ूरमहा पगार श्री. दनचळ साहेब ूेि होिे.
प्रश्न: ि्हािा पगार दूल्यासंूभामि पावत्या ि्ही ूाखि करण्यास ियार अहाि का ?
ईत्तर: क्ठल्याही पावत्या ूेण्याि येि नव्हत्या.
पगार दूल्यासंूभामि कागूावर साही घेण्याि येि ऄसे व िो कागू श्री. दनचळ साहेब त्यांच्याक े ठेवरन घेि ऄसि. हे खरे की, ठेकेूार यांनी मिा काम ूेर्े बंू केिे होिे. हे खरे की,
मी ूाखि केिेल्या हजेरीपत्रकावर सामनेवािा क्र. १ से ४ च्या कोर्ाही ऄदिका-याच्या सह्या व दशक्के नाहीि िसेच िे हजेरीपत्रके प िाळर्ी केल्याबाबि शेरे ूेखीि नाहीि.
हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, दवमानिळाच्या िाब्याि ३६५ एकर जमीन ऄसल्याचे मी खो े सांगि अहे. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, सामनेवािा क्र. १ िे ४ च्या ऄदिका-यादवरुध्ू च्कीची
वक्तव्ये करून मी खो े प्रदिज्ञापत्र ूाखि केिे अहे. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, सामनेवािा क्र. ४ यांचेदवरुध्ू मी च्कीच्या मागण्या केल्या अहेि. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मी
दवमानिळावरीि काम बंू झाल्यानंिर पासपो म ऑफीसिा व आिर दठकार्ी काम केिे व आिर दठकार्ी सध्या काम करि अहे. हे खरे की, सामनेवािा क्र. १ िे ४ ने दूिेिे क्ठिेही
ओळखपत्र मी ऄदभिेखावर ूाखि केिेिे नाही. हे खरे की, दवमानिळ प्रादिकरर् केंद्रशासनाच्या ऄदिपत्याखािी काम करिे व त्यांना केंद्रशासनाच्या सवम कायूे व दनयम िागर
अहेि. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मी खो ी साक्ष ूेि अहे.
हे खरे अहे की मी ूाखि केिेिा पास प्रिम पक्ष क्र. ५ चे ऄदिकारी श्री. सज्जन दनचळ यांनी दूिे अहे. हे खरे अहे की िो पास दवमानिळाच्या पररसराि िात्प्रिा
प्रवेशाकररिा ूेण्याि अिेिा अहे. हे खरे अहे की त्या पासची म्ूि दू. ३०/०४/२०१० पयंि होिी. हे खरे अहे की प्रिम पक्षकार क्र. १ िे ४ यांनी मिा दू. ३१/१२/२०१५ पयंि
दवमानिळ पररसराि प्रवेशाकररिा िसाच पास दूिा होिा. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मिा ूेण्याि अिेल्या प्रवेशाच्या पासचा ओळखपत्र ऄसा च्कीचा ऄिम िाव्न त्याचा ओळखपत्र
हर््न वापर करून प्रस्ि्िची खो ी केस ूाखि केिी अहे.”
Thereafter on behalf of first party No. 5 Smt. Gangishetty, Advocate holding for Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld.
Advocate for first party No. 5 conducted cross-examination and some more vital admissions are brought on record.
Therefore, they are also useful to reproduce the same which are as under:-
“मी आयत्ता ४ िी पयंि दशकिी अहे. मी स्वच्छिेचे काम करि होिे. २०१२ सािापयंि मी एऄरपो म ऑिॉरर ी ऑफ आंद या यांचेक े काम करि होिे. हे खरे की, संिोष
कौिगी हे मॅनेजर होिे व त्यांच्या हािाखािी मी काम करि होिे. हे खरे की, संिोष कौिगी हे प्रिम पक्ष क्र. १ िे ४ यांचे मॅनेजर होिे. २०१२ सािानंिर प्रिम पक्ष क्र. ५ चा
दवमानिळाशी संबंि रादहिा नाही िे मिा मादहि नाही. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मी ठेकेूारामाफमिच दवमानिळावर काम करि होिे. कामाच्या दठकार्ी ठेकेूार येि जाि होिे िे मिा
मादहि नाही. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, मिा ठेकेूाराक रन पगार दमळि ऄसे. हे खरे की, २०१२ सािानंिर मी प्रिम पक्ष क्र. १ िे ४ यांचेक े काम करि होिे. मिा ज्यावेळी कामावरुन
काढण्याि अिे त्यावेळी मी प्रिम पक्ष क्र. १ िे ४ यांचेक े कामािा होिे ऄसे माझे हर्र्े अहे हे खरे की, माझी मागर्ी प्रिम पक्ष क्र. १ िे ४ यांचेदवरुध्ूच अहे. हे हर्र्े खरे
नाही की, प्रिम पक्ष क्र. ५ चा प्रस्ि्ि प्रकरर्ाशी क्ठिाही संबंि नाही. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, दवमानिळावर काम करण्यास स्रुवाि केल्यापासरन िे काम बंू करेपयंि मी
ठेकेूारामाफमिच काम करि होिे.
हे खरे की, मी नमरू केिेिी एि.अय.सी पॉदिसी माझे वैयदक्तक नावाने होिी. हे खरे की, सज्जन दनचळ यांचेदवरुध्ू मी क्ठिी कायूेशीर कारवाइ केिी नाही. स्विःहून सांगिे की,
त्यांना नो ीस दूिी होिी. हे हर्र्े खरे नाही की, श्री दनचळ यांचेदवरुध्ू मी केिेिे अरोप दनरािार ऄसरन प्रस्ि्िच्या प्रकरर्ाशी काहीही एक संबंि नाही व िे सवम अरोप खो े
अहेि.”
Thereafter on behalf of second party filed evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22.
On the contrary first party No. 1 to 8 have not examined any independent witness to prove their
contentions, averments and objections raised in their Written Statement.
44.
My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex. O-5 including issue of employer-employee relationship between
the first party and second party and the entitlements of the reliefs claimed by the second party. According to second
party she was working from 2008-2009 with Air Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port
as Sweeper-cum-Labourer with first party. According to second party Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air
Port since its inception. It is specific stand of second party that she was appointed by and through M. A. D. C. for
performing sweeping, cleaning and other managerial work at Solapur Air Port since 2008-2009 on the wages of Rs.
4,000/- to 5,000/-. She was further used to work plantation and maintenance and watering to existence plants,
greenery was also done by second party. She also used to cleaning bathrooms, urinals on daily basis. Therefore,
work done by second party was perennial in nature and not ending in nature. According to second party the said
work is still in existence at Solapur Air Port. However, second party also admits that first party No. 5 was looking
after and has total control over the Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4. At the time of changing of control
3618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and taking charge, the first party No. 3 and 4 have assured second party that she will be made permanent and will
be pay salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employees. It is further case of the second party that
she was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port regarding she will be paid Rs.
8,000/- to 9,000/- towards wages but amount was not received to second party. It is also contention of the second
party that she was given identity card being an employee of the Air Port Authority. She used to mark attendance
which was recorded by Air Port In-charge, Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 5
have continuously and consistently kept supervision and control over the second party. Alternatively it is the case of
the second party that as an eye wash camouflage, the services employed were shown as contract labour through
first party No. 6, 7 and 8 for using a weapon to give go-by to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights
of permanency and regularization of services. In short the second party claimed that she was and is employee of
first party No. 1 to 4.
45.
While deciding the core issue of employer-employee relationship between the second party and the first
party No. 1 to 4, the second party though claimed she was an employee of first party No. 1 to 4 and she have
submitted that the copies of documents at Ex. U-4, U-11 and U-20 respectively claiming that she was in the
employment since 2008 till 28/12/2015, that means more than approximately for 7 years of the service. It is
pertinent to note that the second party have not filed on record crucial documents mainly her appointment letter,
salary slip, documents relating to show her leave at relevant time and any contribution paid towards P. F. or E. S. I.
C. etc. etc. on record. It is oral contention of the second party that her services were supervised and managed by
first party No. 1 to 4 whereas she was examined herself below Ex. UW-1. In her cross-examination she admits that
she was appoint in the employment of Solapur Air Port at that time no notice was published in the newspaper
regarding the recruitment of the employees. Surprisingly she admits that one Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and
M/s. Shrikrishna Construction Contractor through whom she was appointed. She further admits that the Solapur
Air Port is transferred to Air Port Authority of India since 2012. The said Air Port of India never published any
time any advertisement in newspaper regarding recruitment of the employees.
Further she admits that she was not called for interview by the Air Port Authority of India nor she was
issued appointment letter. Surprisingly, she admits that Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and M/s. Shrikrishna
Constriction Contractor who are first party No. 6 to 8 used to send her another work during her employment. She
admits that after 2012 the officers of Air Port Authority of India never assured her regarding the permanency in
the employment. Further Air Port of India have not issued any identity card. All these vital admissions are self
explanatory to decide relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4. Further she admits that she was
given the entry pass at Air Port Solapur. The period of entry pass was expired on 30/04/2010 and first party No. 1
to 4 have issued same entry pass to second party for the period ending on 31/12/2015.
46.
Admittedly, no appointment orders are issued, no payment slips are issued to the second party nor
termination order issued to the second party. In her cross-examination conduced by and on behalf of first party No.
5 she surprisingly admits that her claim is against only first party No. 1 to 4. She denied that since her employment
till her termination she worked through contractor. The Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 2A (2) of
the I. D. Act conducted conciliation proceedings and after its failure issued certificate to second party to approach
to appropriate forum. The documents which are placed on record mainly the demand notice dated 16/07/2016
certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune and copy of entry pass valid till 30/04/2010
and entry pass issued by Solapur Air Port valid till 31/12/2015 and one page of attendance register having no
signature, seal or name of the employer.
47.
It is true that the second party filed application at Ex. U-8 for direction to produce some copies of
documents at Ex. U-8 and U-9. Both the applications are partly allowed by my Ld. Predecessor by orders dated
13/03/2019 and 02/03/2023. But first party failed to produce those documents. Surprisingly, the second party filed
application at Ex. U-11 for permission to lead secondary evidence before the Court. The said application was
allowed and second party is permitted to lead secondary evidence. Therefore, on behalf of second party filed list of
documents at Ex. U-11 and at Ex. U-14 copy of attendance register for the period 09/03/2014 to 18/06/2014 does
not bear name of employer or signature of any concerned supervisor/manager or authorized officer. At Ex. U-15
the second party himself to file document showing that handing over/taking over of Solapur Air Port of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India in pursuance to G. R. Dated 04/12/2012 the first party
was transferred to Air Port Authority of India in the year 2012. Most surprising the document which is filed by the
second party by way secondary evidence at Ex. U-16, it is the photocopy of attendance register showing muster was
kept by Union Steel First Party No. 6 for the period August-2008 to February-2015 at Ex. U-17 is another
attendance register for the period 02/02/2015 to 31/12/2015 which does not bear name of employer, signature of
any manager or authorized officer nor filed on record any document vouchers or bank statement showing that the
second party was paid directly by first party No. 1 to 4 whereas her claim of reinstatement of continuity of service
and back wages against first party No. 1 to 4. The documents which are placed on record are most clearly showing
that the second party was in the employment of Union Steel Contractor first party No. 6 since 2008. Therefore no
adverse inference can be drawn against first party No. 1 to 5. Two corroborate documents her cross-examination
below Ex. UW-1 is more than sufficient to establish the relationship between the second party and first party No. 1
to 4 those documents loudly speaking that the second party was in the employment through contractor that is first
party No. 6 to 8.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3619
48.
It should not be ignored that the first party No. 2 to 4 filed the copy of annual maintenance contract (Civil)
2015-2016 for operational area at Solapur Air Port Page No. 1 to 154 at Ex. C-17. The contract agreement dated
20/10/2015 signed between the Air Port Authority of India and M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions for supplying
manpower to first party No. 1 to 4. Considering all these documents mainly in the light of oral admissions given by
the second party in her cross-examination shows that she was never directly appointed by first party No. 1 to 4 nor
first party No. 5 at any point of time. Whereas documents herself placed on record showing that she was employed
through contractor namely Union Steel since 2008. Therefore, she was employee of contractor and not of first
party No. 1 to 4 as principal employer. These documents shows that there is no relationship between the second
party and first party No. 1 to 5 at any point of time.
49.
It is needless to mention here that in view of the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor and evidence led by
the second party it is admitted position that the second party was well aware that she was appointed through
contractor. However, she was contended that the said contract was sham and bogus and camouflage. As per
Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, there was no declaration regarding sham
and bogus contract unless and until it is declared by the appropriate authority that the said contract was sham and
bogus, the second party cannot claim any benefits as mentioned in her prayer clause of Statement of Claim against
first party No. 1 to 5. The entire burden was cast upon second party to establish there is employer-employee
relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4 and 5. However, though the burden cast upon second
party but she miserably failed to file on record cogent documentary evidence such as her appointment order, wages
paid by the first party No. 1 to 4 & 5 or she was issued any notice in her tenure of employment or any such
document which establishes the relationship between the first party No. 1 to 5 but the most relevant document
material are missing from the record.
50.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nilgiri (cited supra) where it is observed that unless it is proved by an appointment letter, salary etc. etc., it cannot
be said that there is any employer-employee relationship, moreover, unless there is reference to whether the
contract between the first party No. 1 and others regarding contract is sham and bogus, Tribunal cannot be
decided without referring such type of dispute to the Tribunal. On the contrary from the record first party No. 6 to
8 since beginning are the contractors.
51.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of International Air Port Authority of India Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers’ Union 2009 (123) FLR. has laid down that the Tribunal has to comply tests like
who pays the salary, who has power to remove/dismiss from service, or to initiate disciplinary action. In short who
has direct control and supervision over employees to decide whether the contract is nominal or only on paper. It is
further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unless there is invocation under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Tribunal cannot direct the principal employer to absorb or regularize services of the
contract labour. It is also held that the supervision and control of principal employer will not be only test to hold
that they are direct employees of the principal employer.
52.
On behalf of first party No. 5 so many observations are relied to show that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the first party and first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. In all the observations in sum and
substance are similar as discussed above. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is claim of the second party that she
was terminated on 28/12/2015 by the first party No. 1 to 4. In fact it is brought on record that she was contract
labour. Her termination appears to be non renewal of contract with first party No. 1 to 5. Therefore, termination
does not constituted retrenchment also. Therefore, she is not entitled to get relief of reinstatement with continuity
of service and to regularize in the employment since 2009 against first party No. 1 to 5. In absence of any
employer-employee relationship though the second party examined herself but failed to establish that there is
relationship of employer-employee between first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. Therefore, claim of
reinstatement and back wages against first party no. 1 to 5 required to be answered in negative.
As second party failed to prove the relationship between herself and first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, issue
is required to be answered in the negative.
53.
The another issue is in respect of entitlement of relief of second party. It is the case of the first party No. 1
to 4 since beginning that the first party No. 6 to 8 appointed the second party paid the salary, supervise and
manage her services, she was allotted work in different places other than first party. It is also contention that the
first party No. 6 to 8 she received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 and the first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal
employer of the second party. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demand of second
party and they are duty bound to comply all the statutory provisions of Labour Laws, Standing Orders, Circulars
related with second party’s employment.
54.
During the course of argument Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 fairly submitted that
during crucial period of termination of second party was not paid salary for the month of November and
December-2015. The contract with first party No. 1 to 4 came to an end on 31/12/2015 due to non renewal of
contract they are unable to provide employment to second party. However, they are ready to pay unpaid wages of
two months. It is pertinent to note here that though the second party in her statement of claim contended that work
3620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
which she was performed still in existence at first party No. 1 to 4. However, to show this fact neither filed any
document nor examined any independent witness to establish that the work is available. Mere allegations in the
Statement of Claim are not sufficient to hold that the work is available.
55.
At the same time it should not be ignored that admittedly since 2008 till 20/12/2015 she was working as
sweeping, cleaning and due to non renewal of contract, she was terminated without issuing notice by first party No.
6 to 8. At the most, she is entitled to get two months salary and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments that if reinstatement is not possible then concerned employee should be given lump-sum compensation
considering her 8 years service through contractor, notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other legal dues as
per applicable Law to the second party by first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- to second party, it will be met the ends of justice and no prejudice will be caused either to first party No.
6 to 8 or to the second party.
56.
Therefore, in this angle of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case I come to conclusion that
second party is entitled to get lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final of her claim. Therefore,
issue regarding entitlement should required to be answered in partly in affirmative and I answer the same in partly
in affirmative. I find much substance in the statement made on behalf first party No. 1 to 4 and first party No. 5,
the observations relied by the first parties are helpful to decide the issue of contract labour by this Tribunal.
Though on behalf of second party some observations are relied but they are not helpful to the facts and
circumstances of the present case in hand. With due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court I mentioned here that
the observations relied by the second party are not helpful to grant relief claimed by her.
57.
Therefore, reference needs to be answered partly in affirmative against the first party No. 6 to 8
only. With this, I proceed to pass following award:-
AWARD
1)
Reference (IT) No. 02/2017 is answered partly in affirmative against first party No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
First Party No. 6 to 8 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to second party within period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of award.
3)
No order as to costs.
4)
Copies of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.
5)
Proceedings is closed.
Date: 06-12-2025
M. R. KUMBHAR, Presiding Officer
amj/-
Assistant Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Solapur.
Argued on: 05/12/2025
Dictated on: 05 & 06/12/2025
Transcribed on: 08, 09 & 10/12/2025
Checked & Signed on: 11/12/2025
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 707.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार सेंरल एजवएिन जमजनस्ट्री; एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मिाराष्ट्र एयरृोटव डेवलृमेंट अ ॉररटी; मेससव
श्रीकृ्ि कंस्ट्रक्िंस; मेससव यूजनयन स्ट्टील; श्री प्रमोि टी. कुलाल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जिवप्ृा िारेप्ृा
चालवािी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिम औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 03/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
17.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-41]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3621
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 03/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Central Aviation
Ministry; Airport Authority of India; Maharashtra Airport Development Authority; M/s. Shrikrishna
Constructions; M/s. Union Steel; Mr. Pramod T. Kulal and Mr. Shivappa Dareppa Chalvadi which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.04.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-41]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SOLAPUR
Presided Over by M. R. Kumbhar, Presiding Officer
Reference (IT) No. 03/2017
Exhibit No.:
Dispute between:-
1)
Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
R/o. Govt. of India, New Delhi, Delhi
2)
Manager, Airport Authority of India,
R/o. A. N. Union Office, Port Cabin, New Airport
Colony, Parshiwada, Sahara-Andheri Road,
Mumbai – 400 009.
3)
Airport Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
4)
Office Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
5)
Maharashtra Airport Development Authority,
R/o. World Trade Centre, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai.
6)
M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions,
R/o. Block No. A/505, Yashraj, Bhekrao Nagar,
S. 177, Phursungi, Pune – 412 308.
7)
M/s. Union Steel,
R/o. B-Wing, 11 Floor, Flat No. 206,
Varsha Adarsha Co-op. Housing Society,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) Mumbai – 400 024.
8)
Mr. Pramod T. Kulal,
R/o. 4-A, Aaji Sainik Nagar, Vijapur Road,
Solapur.
… First Parties
And:-
Mr. Shivappa Dareppa Chalvadi
Age: 45 Years; Occupation : Nil;
R/o. Rahul Nagar, Hotgi Road,
Solapur – 413 003.
… Second Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:-
Advocate for First Parties No.1 To 4 :- Mr. S. S. Chiwari & S.S. Bendre
Advocate for First Party No. 5
:- Mr. V. B. Marathe
Advocate for First Party No. 6
:- Mr. G. H. Kulkarni
Advocate for First Party No. 7
:- Mr. B. T. Jadhav
Advocate for First Party No. 8
:- Mr. L. A. Gawali
Advocate for Second Party
:- Mr. V. R. Deshpande
AWARD
(Delivered on:- 06/12/2025)
1.
As per certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune to second Party Mr. Shivappa
Dareppa Chalvadi as per Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the I. D. Act‘ for
brevity). After completion of mandatory 45 days of filing his dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore,
approached this Tribunal and directly filed his Statement of Claim under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act for
adjudication on 07/03/2017 in respect of dispute relating to reinstatement with full back wages and continue service
with status and benefits of permanency or regularization at Solapur Air Port.
2.
The Second Party has filed his Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and contended that he was working with Air
Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port from the year 2008-09 as Sweeper-cum-Labour with
First Party. The Secretary Central Aviation Ministry Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has
managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air Port Authority since its inception. The Second Party further
contended that initially he was appointed by and through Maharashtra Air Port Development Corporation (In short M
A D C) for performing sweeping, cleaning and other manual work at Solapur Air Port. He was being paid Rs. 4,000/-
to 5,000/- by M A D C. The area of Solapur Air Port is 365 Acre. Hence, the work of cleaning and sweeping was of
big nature and is required to be done on day to day basis. Beside the office control tower, other office rooms, godown,
entrance road, internal roads were also required to be clean and maintain properly and for that purpose services of
second party were required on day to day basis.
3.
He further contended that the work of plantation and maintenance of trees, watering to existing plants and
greenery was also done by the second party on daily basis. He used to clean bath-rooms, urinals, etc. etc. on daily
basis. Above work was performing as per direction and instruction of first party No. 3 and 4. According to second
party all above work is of perennial in nature and is of non ending in nature. All the works as stated above are still in
existence and will continue till existence of Air Port at Solapur.
4.
The second party further contended that M A D C i. e. First Party No. 5 was looking after and has total
control over the Solapur Air Port after 2012. The Solapur Air Port was under the control of Air Port In-charge and
office In-charge of Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4 at the time of change of control and at the time of
taking charge, First Party No. 3 and 4, they assured the second party that he will be made permanent and will be
giving pay, Salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employee. Therefore, he kept bonafide belief
towards assurance and continued him above mentioned work at Solapur Air Port under their control. He further
adhere that in the year 2014 second party was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air
Port Solapur that he will be paid Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month wages. However, he did not receive such amount of
wages and he was never given benefit of permanency though he was working continuously from the year 2008-09.
The wages paid to second party were far less than the statutory rate of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the first party has
committed breach of the statutory provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
Thereafter he was given Identity Card being the employee of the Air Port Authority. He specifically
contended that the attendance was to be marked and recorded by the Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge Solapur
Air Port. Both were having supervisory and managerial control over the second party. As an eye wash and camouflage
services the employees were shown as contract labourer through first parties No. 6, 7 and 8. The said trick was used
as weapon to give go-by or by-pass to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights of the second party.
Than even after the changes the so called labour contractors on paper. The second party was continued on his work as
per earlier system method and was doing some work as before.
5.
According to second party the work of daily nature/permanent nature cannot be allotted to labour contractor
and only work of temporary and continue nature can be allotted to labour contractor. The daily supervision and
control was of first parties No. 3 and 4. The paper work shown of first party to engage second party through labour
contractor was not legal, proper and bonafide. Rather the said paper work was done only with intention to deny
legitimate rights including permanency regularization of second party.
6.
The second party further contended that one Mr. Sajjan Nichal who was working as Manager has instructed
the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C. policy otherwise threatened to terminate their services. So the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3623
second party along with other co-workers took the L. I. C. policy and also becoming members of Trade Unions.
Further in the month of December-2015 the second party and other co-workers were purposely not paid monthly
wages and during that period second party and other co-workers were forced to sign below agreement/affidavit/
document/contract prepared by them, which was not read over by the second party in their language known to them.
The second party and other co-workers were put under tremendous pressure and was subjected to harassing for
signing said agreement but second party remain firm in signing the said arbitrary, ex-party and illegal agreement.
Therefore, he was not paid wages of November and December-2015. Therefore, second party and other co-workers
were not allowed to sign the muster-roll from December-2015 onward. They refused to provide employment to
second party.
7.
According to the second party he was worked since 2008 to December-2015 with Solapur Air Port without
any break. The work performing by him is of perennial in nature and work is still in existence. The first party refused
to give employment only to deprive legitimate right of permanency and regularization.
8.
The second party lastly contended that he has completed more than 240 days service in each and every year
with Solapur Air Port who is the principal employer of the second party. Also first party No. 1-4 are principal
employer of the second party. However, the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provision and
procedure of Law as well as due process of Law. Even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1
to 4 by violating provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act as well as Section 4(c) of Standing Orders and relevant
circulars, regulations etc. etc. At the time of termination the first party has not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay,
nor paid compensation before terminating service. The termination of second party is by way of unfair labour
practices and sole intention is to deprive all benefits of permanency and regularization by violating principles of
natural justice, equity and fair play. The first party have adopted the forbidden policy of hire and fire. Therefore, the
second party issued legal notice dated 07/01/2016 through their advocate. However, the first party have given false
and contrary as well as evasive reply to it. Hence, the second party has filed Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2016 in
Industrial Court, Solapur. However, the said Court returned the complaint to second party with liberty to approach
appropriate authority/or court. Hence, the second party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter
submitted his case for conciliation before Conciliation Officer and Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune.
The Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune has issued certificate dated
09/12/2016 as provided under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the second party approached this Court and filed
his statement of claim in detail and prayed that the first party be directed to reinstate the second party at Solapur Air
Port from 28/12/2015 with full back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits and to grant status
and benefit of permanency regularization at Solapur Air Port from the date of completion of 240 days service at first
instance from 2009 with difference in wages and allowances along with 18% interest thereon and for unpaid salary of
month of November, December-2015 with 18% interest thereon till its actual realization.
9.
After submitting the statement of claim second party my Ld. Predecessor issued notice to all the first parties
No. 1 to 8. In response to that Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate with Shri. S. S. Bendre, Ld. Advocate appeared
through First Parties No. 1 to 4 and filed detailed Written Statement at Ex. C-5 on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V.
B. Marthe, Ld. Advocate put his appearance and filed Say and Written Statement at Ex. CA-4. Shri. G. H. Kulkarni,
Ld. Advocate on behalf of first party No. 6, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. L. A.
Gawali, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 8 though put their appearance but failed to file their Written Statement.
Therefore, my Ld. Predecessor by an order dated 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against first party
No. 6 to 8.
10.
The first party No. 1 to 4 by filing their Written Statement at Ex. C-5 denied all the contentions, averments
and statements made in the statement of claim. It is specific case of the first party No. 1 to 4 that second party was
worked with Solapur Air Port are not true and correct. According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was
appointed by contractors that is first party No. 6 to 8. That the contents in respect of control, supervision by Solapur
Air Port since inception are not true and correct. Accordingly, the first party No. 3 was having supervisory control
over the Solapur Air since December-2012. The appointment of second party are denied specifically. The first party
No. 1 to 4 never used to give direction or any instruction for work. However, it is admitted that in respect of control
over the Solapur Air Port after 2012 is with Air Port Authority of India. That the first party No. 1 to 4 never assured
about permanency and regularization or other consequential benefits to the second party because second party was
never under the control of first party No. 1 to 4. The first party No. 1 to 4 never promised to pay an amount of Rs. 8-9
thousands per month towards wages. Then first party No. 1 to 4 never paid any wages to second party. Therefore,
committing any breach of minimum wages does not arise. First party No. 1 to 4 have never issued any identity card to
the second party being an employee of Air Port Authority of India and or of Air Port In-charge never marked
attendance nor kept supervision over the second party.
11.
According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was appointed by various contractors and working with
various contractors. The second party was working under direct control of various contractors that is first party No. 6
to 8 such as Union Steels, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Constructions. The first party No. 1 to 4 have never maintained
muster-roll for attendance and for work performance of second party neither assured at any time regarding
permanency as alleged in Statement of Claim. Moreover, as per contention of Statement of Claim first party No. 1 to 4
3624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
are not concerned with present dispute raised by the second party which is vague in nature.
12.
The entire contentions of statement of claim was denied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and contended that they
have not done any act such as termination, retrenchment or any act with intend to deprive legitimate benefit of
permanency or regularization of second party as the first party No. 1 to 4 never appointed the second party. Therefore,
question of illegal termination and violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act at all not arise as alleged against him.
13.
The first party No. 1 to 4 lastly contended that Solapur Air Port was under the control and supervision of M.
A. D. C. till December 2012. Thereafter Air Port is under the control of Air Port Authority of India that is first party
No. 1 to 4 that the first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concern about the appointment made by M. A. D. C. during
their tenure. The first party No. 1 to 4 never appoints any labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port, Air
Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to registered contractor that is first party No. 6 and 8
namely M/s. Shrikishna Construction, Solapur and thereafter M/s. Pramod T. Kulal, Solapur. The Air Port Authority
of India has continued work on contract awarded by M. A. D. C. for operational reasons till appointment of new
contractor. It is specific contention of first party No. 1 to 4 that the second party is appointed by the contractor and
therefore, the second party is removed by the said contractor. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages,
compensation, benefits provided as per Labour Laws and Standing Orders, implement the circulars etc. etc. as the
second party was under the control as well as supervision of first party No. 6 to 8.
Therefore, their services are controlled and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. As the second party has
received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal employer of second party.
Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demands of second party and duty bound to comply all
the statutory provisions of the Labour Laws, standing Orders, Circulars relating with second party and prayed that the
claim against first party No. 1 to 4 may kindly be dismissed.
14.
The first party No. 5 in their Written Statement filed below Ex. CA-4 denied all the contents, averments and
allegations made against first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim are false, baseless. It is further denied
that the second party was working with first party No. 5 as Sweeper-cum-Labourer. Further denied that the second
party was appointed by first party No. 5 at Mumbai for performing work of sweeping and cleaning and was paying
wages of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month.
15.
The first party No. 5 also denied that the first party No. 5 was required to maintain and clean the property at
Solapur. Further denied that the first party No. 5 was to maintain work of plantation and maintenance and of watering
the existing plants to clean the bath-rooms, urinals etc. Further denied that the work is of perennial in nature and not
ending. The contentions of statement of claim are false and baseless. It is fact that the first party No. 5 was looking
after Solapur Air Port till December-2012 as regards first party No. 3 and 4. This party is not concerned with the
contents raised in Statement of Claim against them due to want of knowledge.
16.
The first party No. 5 lastly contended that they have never engaged or appointed the second party at any time
till its tenure. In fact this party used to give work of purely temporarily in nature. Therefore, contractor not only that
the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was got done on contractual basis. Therefore,
there is no employer-employee relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party at any point of time till
December-2012. There is no compliance against the first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim at para No.
20 clearly shows that he is claiming reinstatement with full back wages from 28/12/2015. Moreover, the second party
was admitted that after December-2012, Solapur Air Port was handed over as per Government Resolution of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India. Therefore, first party No. 5 was unnecessarily made party
in this reference. The contents regarding continuous work from 2008-09 till 2010 as this first party never appointed
the second party one Mr. Sajjan Nichal had never instructed the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C.
Policy.
In fact the second party and co-worker of contractor M/s. Union Steel and the said contractor had taken
policy of its workers which is knowing to do with Mr. Sajjan Nichal. Therefore this first party No. 5 is not liable
either to reinstate or to give back wages or any such prayers made against them. Therefore, reference against first
party No. 5 requires to be rejected and prayed to dismiss the same.
17.
The first party No. 6, 7 and 8 though appeared through Ld. Advocates, but failed to file their Written
Statement if any on record. The Ld. Advocates have participated in respective dates of proceedings. My Ld.
Predecessor below Ex. U-1 on 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against these first parties.
18.
From the rival contentions and submissions made in the Statement of Claim as well as Written Statement of
first party No. 1 to 5 issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor below Ex. O-7 on 06/08/2019 and my findings to
them are as under:-
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1)
Whether the Second Party is entitled for the reliefs claimed in
the statement of claim?
… Partly in Affirmative
against First Party
No. 6 to 8 only.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3625
2)
Whether the Second Party proves that there exist an employer-
employee relationship between Second Party and First Party?
… In the negative in
respect of First Party
No. 1 to 5 And
In the affirmative in
respect of First Party
No. 6 to 8
3)
What Award?
… As per final Award.
REASONS
19.
Second Party in respect of their contention raised in Statement of Claim have filed some copies of documents
with List Ex. U-4 comprising of demand notice dated 16/07/2016 given by second party and certificate dated
09/12/2016 issued by Conciliation Officer, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune. Second party also filed
additional documents along with list Ex. U-11 comprising of copy of attendance register regarding second
party(Exh.U-14), charge report of handing over/taking over charge form Solapur Airport Government of Maharashtra
to Airports Authority of India (Exh. U-15), copy of muster roll maintained by Union Steel (Exh. U-16), copy of
attendance register regarding second party (Exh. U-17) and copy of legal notice issued by second party through
Adv. Kashid (Exh. U-18) and therefore, second party also filed some documents along with list Ex. U-20 comprising
of original entry permit given to second party by Incharge Solapur Air Port and photocopy of attendance register
showing attendance of second party with Solapur Air Port Incharge for the month of September-2008 (Exh. U-21). On
the contrary the first party No. 2 to 4 have also filed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-17 comprising of
copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (civil) 2015-16 for operational Area at Soalpur Airport and on behalf of first
party No. 5 have placed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-13 comprising of copy of letter dated 12/07/2013,
copy of letter dated 07/10/2013, copy of letter dated 31/12/2013, copy of letter dated 30/01/2013, copy of letter dated
26/05/2013, copy of letter dated 08/04/2013, copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2013, statement of
payment and copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2014. The first party No. 6 to 8 neither filed Written
Statement nor produced any document on record.
20.
The second party have filed application at Ex. U-8 for production of documents which was partly allowed by
my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13/08/2019 and directed to produce the documents called for. Again second
party filed another application for production of documents at Ex. U-9 which was partly allowed vide order dated
02/03/2023. Thereafter second party have again filed application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
below Ex. U-10, U-12. Both applications were allowed vide Order dated 09/02/2024.
21.
The second party to prove his claim made in the Statement of Claim have examined himself at Ex. UW-1 by
filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. He was duly cross-examined by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 5
respectively but no cross order passed against the first party No. 6 to 8. Thereafter on behalf of second party filed
evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22. On the contrary the first party No. 1 to 4, 5 and 6 to 8 have not led any oral
evidence before this tribunal.
22.
Conciliation officer as per direction of this tribunal produced copies of documents with list Ex. C-20 that is
conciliation proceedings given by Conciliation officer And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune(containing
102 pages) on 23/8/2024.
Heard Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate for second party and Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with
Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate for first party No. 5, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. G. H.
Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 and on behalf of first party No. 8 Shri. L. A. Gawali chose remained
absent after filing their vakalatnamas. In addition to this Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate filed Written Synopsis
of argument at Ex. U-24 with list of case-laws. On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Bendre,
Ld. Advocate also placed on record Written Synopsis of argument at Ex. C-23 with list of citations. On the contrary
on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate filed notes of
argument at Ex. CA-7 with list of citations. Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 submitted and
admitted that the second party was in the employment of first party No. 6 to 8 they are contractors. Their contract was
terminated at the end of December-2015. Due to non renewal of contract the services of second party was terminated
and first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay two months unpaid salary only and prayed to pass appropriate order.
23.
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate Shri. V. R. Deshpande for second party submitted in detail
as per the contentions of statement of claim. With the help of oral as well as documentary evidence, he further
submitted that the second party was not paid wages of November and December-2015 because the second party and
other co-workers have refused to sign agreement. Therefore, they were not allowed to sign muster roll since
3626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
December-2015 onward and also refused to provide employment since then. He further submitted that the second
party and other co-workers have worked from 2008 with Solapur Air Port till end of December-2015 without any
break. He further submitted that the work performed by the second party is of perennial in nature and the said work is
still in existence. However, for no reason from December-2015 the first party have refused to give employment to
second party with intention to deprive second party from their legitimate benefits of permanency.
24.
He further strongly submitted that the second party has completed more than 240 days of service in each and
every year with Solapur Air Port Authority that is first party No. 2 to 4. Solapur Air Port who is the principal
employer of the second party. So also first party No. 1 to 4 are principal employer of the second party. He then
submitted that the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provisions of Law and procedure of
Law and deprived the benefit of permanency even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1 to
4. Solapur Air Port authority have failed to observe the provision of Section 25-F and provisions of Section 4(c) of the
Standing Orders relevant circulars as well as Resolutions passed from time to time. He put his great emphasis on the
issue of termination and submitted that the first party have not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay, compensation
before terminating services of the second party. Termination of second party is hastily, abruptly and by engaging into
unfair labour practices with sole intention to deprive from benefit of permanency. Therefore, termination is illegal and
not bonafide. The first party also violated principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. They have adopted
forbidden policy of hire and fire.
25.
Then he invited my attention towards legal notice dated 07/01/2016 issued through their advocate to which
second party received false and contrary and evasive reply then he submitted that the second party and other co-
workers have filed complaint of unfair labour practices bearing ULP No. 35/2016 before this Court. However, the
Industrial Court, Solapur returned the said complaint with liberty to approach appropriate forum. Therefore, second
party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter submitted case for conciliation with Regional
Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune and after filing application to implement first party No. 6 to 8 they were
made parties to the proceedings. He further submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune had
issued certificate dated 09/12/2016 as per Section 2A of the I. D. Act to file this reference before this Tribunal.
Therefore, reference made by the second party is maintainable.
26.
Then he invited my attention towards the order below Ex. U-8 and U-9 and submitted that though as per
direction of this Tribunal regarding muster-roll, payment register, labour contract agreements, licence etc. etc., but
first party failed to produce the same. Then he invited my attention towards oral evidence of the second party at Ex.
UW-1 and put his great emphasis on the list of document at Ex. U-11 and submitted that the second party is workman
and workers does not have any custody of original documents. Therefore, second party has filed documents and call
for the said documents from the custody of first party but in spite of directions to produce by this Tribunal first party
have not produced documents. Then he invited my attention towards order below Ex. U-12 and submitted as per the
permission of this Tribunal. The second party produced some copies of documents along with list Ex. U-12 which is
at Ex. U-14 to U-18 i. e. copies of muster rolls, documents of handling over the Air Port Management, legal notice
etc.. Those are required to be read in evidence. Then filed some more copies of documents with list Ex. U-20 and U-
21 respectively. He then submitted that the second party as proved his case that the termination of service from
28/12/2015 is illegal and act of unfair labour practices. Therefore, second party is entitled for the permanency along
with consequential benefits and from the month of January 2009. According to Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate
oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of second party have gone unchallenged, unrebutted or uncontroverted.
Therefore, reference of second party is required to be allowed and prayed to allow the same.
27.
He lastly submitted that the first party has not lead its own oral/documentary evidence to prove their defense,
objection and contentions in Written Statement. First parties have neither produced any document in their custody
even after directions from this Tribunal nor producing their own evidence. So also first party No. 6 to 8 have also not
lead their own evidence nor entered into witness box. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the first
party. He further submitted that as per settled Law, pleadings and written statement is not evidence. The first party
have taken adjournments but failed to file their own evidence. Therefore, defense cannot be liable to be considered for
want of their evidence and prayed to allow reference with all prayers made therein.
28.
He relied upon the following citations:-
i) Iswar Bhai C Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 1341)
ii) Reportable judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 20/12/2024
and relied upon observations at para No. 27 and 28 which reads as -
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead
by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3627
reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice
and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a
positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of
labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed
by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following
extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith.
However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they
have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same
would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.
iii)
Then he relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court between – The Mysore Electrical
Industries Ltd. Vs. Engineering And General Workers Union decided on 09/10/2023 in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2023
(L-RES).
iv) Then he relied upon observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 (Shripal &
Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad) and relied upon observations in para No. 15 which reads as under:-
15.
It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several
years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the
Employer‘s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference
under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally,
workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as
dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a
recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India 3 in the following paragraphs:
―22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the
rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding
the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only
mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often
face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral
to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their
roles mirror those of regular employees. Such mis-classification deprives workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen
in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions
being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not
only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such
as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This
3628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.‖
v)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajranagar
Coal Mines Workers’ Union in Civil Appeal No. 4092-4093/2024 relied upon observations at para No. 22 and 23
which reads as under:-
―22. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to
a conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated
previously, we do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However,
as the case was argued at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals.
What we have referred to here in-above are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High
Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of
work, continuous working of the workmen, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals
filed by the appellant.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and
therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages‖.
vi)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer
I/R to Mangmat. of FCI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2417 – 2418 of 2014 and relied upon observations at para No. 34.
―34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that
when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not
give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-
hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for
regularization would be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize
such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may
amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Art. 14 of the Constitution. Further,
such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility
requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that
similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and
the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction
of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of the left over
workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative
of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by
upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision‖.
vii) He lastly relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court between the Air India Statutory corporation
Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. decided on 06/12/1996, Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-34 of 1996 and prayed
to allow the reference of section party with all prayers made therein.
29.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate submitted in detail as per
the written statement filed on record. He further submitted that the second party prepared the present reference against
stoppage of their work by the contractor and claiming the benefit of permanency and regularization at Solapur Air
Port from the completion of their 240 days of their service at first instance i. e. December 2009 and also claimed
difference of that first wages along with 18% p. a. interest therein. He invited my attention towards the Written
Statement filed on record and contention therein and submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 mainly contended that
the reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of the back door entry who come in the employment by using back
door entry must go through back door. He then submitted that Solapur Air Port Authority was under the control and
supervision of M. A. D. C. first party No. 5 till December-2012 and thereafter under control of Air Port Authority of
India that is first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concerned about appointment
made by M. A. D. C. during their tenure. He put his great emphasis on the document filed by the second party and
submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 never appoint any Labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port then
he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to the registered contractor
that is first party No. 6 to 8. The second party was appointed by the contractor and therefore, second party is removed
by the said contractor. Therefore, the first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages, compensation, benefits as per the
provisions of Labour Laws.
30.
Then he submitted that the second party was under the control of the first party No. 6 to 8 contractor at
relevant time. Therefore, second party was working for the contractor. Moreover, work of second party was controlled
and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. All these facts were admitted by the second party in their cross-
examination.
31.
He lastly submitted that the second party was never appointed by the first party No. 1 to 4 in the year 2009
whereas they were appointed by contractor namely Union Steel, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Construction i. e. first
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3629
party No. 6 to 8 for day to day work of cleaning and maintenance work at Solapur Air Port. The said fact is admitted
by the second party in their cross-examination. Therefore, the employer for second party is of first party No. 6 to 8.
The second party was never controlled nor paid by the M. A. D. C. The demand vouchers were prepared and
maintained by the M. A. D. C. Their work at Solapur Air Port was stopped by the first party No. 6 to 8 that is
contractor. The attendance register produced on record, it does not bear signature and office seal of Air Port Authority
of India nor appeared seal of Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India never
published any advertisement for appointment or never initiated procedure for recruitment of second party nor issued
any identity card as claimed by the second party. Therefore, the present reference is not tenable and maintainable as
per Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. He invited my attention towards definition of retrenchment and
submitted that the termination of workman service due to non renewal of fixed term of contract or the termination of
such contract as per its term does not constitute retrenchment. He further submitted that the service contract of first
party No. 6 to 8 was completed, its tenure and same was not continued and hence, the work allotted through
contractor to second party come to an end. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between first party
No. 1 to 4 and second party nor there is no any appointment nor made any payment nor made any supervision or
control. Therefore, question of violation of Section 25-F and illegal termination does not arise and also question of
payment of compensation does not arise and prayed to reject reference of second party.
32.
He further adhere that the second party can approach directly to the M. A. D. C. i. e. first party No. 5 as
initial period of 240 days service was completed prior to December 2012 at Solapur Air Port. Therefore, the present
reference at all not tenable and maintainable against first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the same.
33.
He relied upon various observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court in which Ex.
C-23 page (No. 7 A) State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293 wherein it is held that, ―Appointment –
Nature of appointment: There is estoppel against challenging nature of appointment once having duly accepted the
same: Having accepted contractual appointment, respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their
appointment.
B]
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 01 wherein in para No. 34 and 36 it is held that -
34. …………..
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with
the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the
same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes
to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis,
the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he
would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless
the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment'
in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould
the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to
continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden
of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
36.
While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent,
courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual
in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be
true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some
employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would
not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who
3630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will
be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a
contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power,
that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or
temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be
getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After
all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept
a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context
that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned
knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The
claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be
considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making
regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been
working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the
nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the
procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of
constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
C]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal and others (2011) SCC 429 wherein in para No. 8 of the said judgment it
is held that -
8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in
pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had
been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16
should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an
employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of
compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process,
can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be `litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years,
let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not
working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing
that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the
cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or
contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for
framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
part time temporary employees.
(v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
D]
State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247
E]
Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 300
F]
K. K. Suresh V. Food Corpn. Of India (2018) 17 SCC
641
G]
Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 1417
H]
Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Anr. AIR 2014 SC 1848
I]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001 SC
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3631
3527
J]
Jt. Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors. [2025 (185) FLR
864 SC]
And prayed that observations relied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and the disputed question therein
is similar to that of the dispute raised by the second party in present case in hand. Therefore, observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court are helpful to the case of the first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the claim of second
party against First Party No. 1 to 4.
34.
On the contrary Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 5 vehemently submitted that the
present reference is referred by the Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune by its certificate dated
09/12/2016 which is placed on record for determination of dispute between parties. The second party raised
demand on 01/07/2016 for their reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages from
completion of 240 days in service. He read over certificate issued by Regional Commissioner (Central) Pune and
submitted that the second party raised dispute under Section 2A of the I. D. Act in regarding termination from
service by the Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted certificate was issued as mandatory of completion of
45 days of filing/raising dispute by second party before Conciliation Officer as provided under the I. D. Act then he
read over Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and Written Statement filed on record at Ex. CA-4.
35.
He put his great emphasis on the issue that there was no employer-employee relationship between first
party No. 5 and second party. He further submitted that first party No. 5 used to give work purely temporary in
nature through contractor not only that the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was
got done on contract basis. In the present reference contractors are made parties as first party No. 6 to 8. Therefore,
it is clear that the second party is admitting that he was appointing by and through contractor. Her claim if any is
against first party No. 6 to 8 then he invited my attention towards issues at Ex. O-7 and submitted that the second
party miserably failed to prove issues framed by this Tribunal.
36.
He lastly submitted that the second party adduced his oral evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief at Ex. UW-1 also filed copies of attendance register at Ex. U-14 for the period from March-
2014 to June-2014 which appears no seal and signature at Ex. U-15 letter of handing over Solapur Air Port from
Government of Maharashtra to the Air Port Authority of India dated 17/12/2012 at Ex. U-16. Muster Roll of Union
Steel i. e. First Party No. 7 for the period August 2008 to February 2015 and lastly at Ex. U-17 attendance register
for the period 02/02/2015 to 29/12/2015 which also not appears signature or stamp. All these documents are self
explanatory to establish his relationship of the employer-employee between first party No. 6 to 8 and second party.
First Party No. 5 unnecessarily made party in the present reference on the point of mis-joinder of necessary party,
reference against first party No. 5 is required to be rejected and prayed to reject the same.
37.
Then he submitted that it is well settled Law that unless the employer-employee relationship between
contract labour i. e. second party and the first party No. 5 is proved the claim of second party is not maintainable.
The burden to prove the relationship is obviously on the second party and hence, second party miserably failed to
bring on record any documentary evidence regarding their appointment orders, wages paid and supervision and
controlled by the employer. Therefore, the second party failed to prove that there existence any employer-employee
relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party and prayed that to reject the claim of second party
against first party No. 5.
38.
He relied upon the observations in -
i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (3) SCC 514
“wherein it is held that, “Employment of the workmen for doing a particular piece of work is at the instance of the
producer or the merchants on an ad hoc basis or job to job basis and, thus, the same may not lead to the conclusion
that relationship of employer and employee has came into being. ….”
ii)
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Taj Sats Air Caterers Ltd. And Another,
reported in 2019 (161) FLR 109 (Bombay High Court).
iii)
Rajesh Shah Vs. Their Workmen, United Workers Association & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) MhL. J. 943
(Bombay High Court).
iv)
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Ramchandran and Ors., reported in 2023 (1) SCC 463 (Supreme Court), and
prayed that the observations relied upon and on behalf of first party No. 5 as well as first party No. 1 to 4 also are
helpful to case of first party and prayed to pass appropriate order.
39.
On the contrary Shri. G. H. Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 submitted that in spite of given
repeated intimation first party No. 6 failed to give material instructions and documents and they have neither filed
W. S. nor led any evidence or filed any document and lastly prayed to pass appropriate order.
40.
On the contrary Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate fairly submitted that the first party No. 7 is required to
3632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
pay unpaid wages of two months from November-2015 and December 2015 and prayed to pass appropriate order.
41.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 8 none appeared nor submitted any oral submissions
reference proceeded ex-party since beginning.
42.
Having heard oral submissions of all the Ld. Advocates. I have gone through the contents of Statement of
Claim in which second party prayed to reinstate with continuity of service and full back wages along with benefits
of permanency/regularization in service since 2009. I have gone through all the demands raised on behalf of
second party and documents placed by the second party as well as the first party and the Regional Commissioner of
Labour (Central) Pune – cum – Conciliation Officer with list Ex. C-20 then I have gone through oral evidence led
by the second party and first party No. 1 to 5. First Party No. 6 to 8 chose remained absent. They have neither filed
their W. S. nor conducted cross-examination or not filed any copies of documents. I have also gone through written
synopsis of the argument filed on behalf of second party as well as first party No. 1 to 5. I have carefully gone
through observations relied by both the parties and considered oral submissions of the Ld. Advocates.
43.
The second party approached this Tribunal as per the certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 09/12/2016. The second party in the Statement of Claim prayed
mainly to reinstate himself at Ex. UW-1 and reiterated entire contentions of Statement of claim as it is on oath.
However, in his cross-examination conducted by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 by Shri. S. H. Chiwari, Ld.
Advocate some admission are brought on record. They are useful to reproduce as under:-
“शे खये की, २००८ वारी भी प्रथभत् वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय काभ वुरु केरे ल त्मालेऱी वज्जन ननचऱ शे भॎनेजय शोते.
शे खये की, काम कयामचे त्माफाफतचे आदेळ श्री. ननचऱ शे देत शोते ल केरेल्मा काभाचा ऩगाय देखीर तेच देत शोते. शे खये की, श्री
ननचऱ शे भशायाष्ट्र वलभान प्राधधकयणाचे अधधकायी शोते. शे खये की, भी काभालय रागरी त्मावाठी नोकयबयतीवाठी कुठरीशी
जाहशयात वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयणाने ल एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने हदरी नव्शती. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय प्रभोद
कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्ण कन्स्टस्रक्ळन मा ठेकेदायाॊच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी भी कयत शोताेे. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ
शे एअयऩोर्ट ॲथाेॎरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी २०१२ वाराऩावून आरे आशे. एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ आल्मानॊतय नोकयबयतीवाठी त्माॊनी जाहशयात हदरी नव्शती ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे खये की,
एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा नोकयी देण्मावॊदबाटत भाझी भुराखत घेतरी नव्शती ल भरा कुठरेशी नेभणूक ऩत्र हदरे
नव्शते. शे म्शणणे खये की, प्रभोद कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्णा कन्स्टस्रक्ळन शे ठेकेदाय वलभानतऱाशळलाम इतय हठकाणीशी
भरा काभ कयण्मावाठी ऩाठलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये आशे की, भरा नोकयीत कामभ करुन घेलू अवे २०१२ वारानॊतय एअयऩोर्ट
अथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने कधीशी वाॊधगतरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र हदरेरे
नाशी. शे खये की, भी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय २००८ वाराऩावून काभ कयत शोताेे त्मालेऱी भाझे शजेयीचे येकॉिट श्री. ननचऱ ल
उऩयोक्त नभूद ठेकेदाय शेच ठेलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भाझी ऩगायाची यक्कभ भाझे फॉक खात्मात जभा केरी जात अवे.
भाझा दयभशा ऩगाय श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ देत शोते.
प्रश्न: तुम्शारा ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत ऩालत्मा तुम्शी दाखर कयण्माव तमाय आशात का ?
उत्तय: कुठल्माशी ऩालत्मा देण्मात मेत नव्शत्मा.
ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत कागदालय वाशी घेण्मात मेत अवे ल तो कागद श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ त्माॊच्माकिे ठेलून घेत अवत. शे खये की,
ठेकेदाय माॊनी भरा काभ देणे फॊद केरे शोते. शे खये की, भी दाखत केरेल्मा शजेयीऩत्रकालय वाभनेलारा क्र. १ वे ४ च्मा कोणाशी
अधधका-माच्मा वह्मा ल शळक्के नाशीत तवेच ते शजेयीऩत्रके ऩिताऱणी केल्माफाफत ळेये देखीर नाशीत.
शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱाच्मा ताब्मात ३६५ एकय जभीन अवल्माचे भी खोर्े वाॊगत आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की,
वाभनेलारा क्र. १ ते ४ च्मा अधधका-मावलरुध्द चुकीची लक्तव्मे करून भी खोर्े प्रनतसाऩत्र दाखर केरे आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी
की, वाभनेलारा क्र. ४ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी चुकीच्मा भागण्मा केल्मा आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी वलभानतऱालयीर काभ फॊद
झाल्मानॊतय ऩावऩोर्ट ऑपीवरा ल इतय हठकाणी काभ केरे ल इतय हठकाणी वध्मा काभ कयत आशे. शे खये की, वाभनेलारा क्र. १
ते ४ ने हदरेरे कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र भी अशबरेखालय दाखर केरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयण केंद्रळावनाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी काभ कयते ल त्माॊना केंद्रळावनाच्मा वलट कामदे ल ननमभ रागू आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी खोर्ी वाष देत
आशे.
शे खये आशे की भी दाखर केरेरा ऩाव प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चे अधधकायी श्री. वज्जन ननचऱ माॊनी हदरे आशे. शे खये आशे की
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3633
तो ऩाव वलभानतऱाच्मा ऩरयवयात तात्ऩुयता प्रलेळाकरयता देण्मात आरेरा आशे. शे खये आशे की त्मा ऩावची भुदत हद.
३०/०४/२०१० ऩमंत शोती. शे खये आशे की प्रथभ ऩषकाय क्र. १ ते ४ माॊनी भरा हद. ३१/१२/२०१५ ऩमंत वलभानतऱ ऩरयवयात
प्रलेळाकरयता तवाच ऩाव हदरा शोता. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा देण्मात आरेल्मा प्रलेळाच्मा ऩावचा ओऱखऩत्र अवा चुकीचा
अथट रालुन त्माचा ओऱखऩत्र म्शणुन लाऩय करून प्रस्तुतची खोर्ी केव दाखर केरी आशे.”
Thereafter on behalf of first party No. 5 Smt. Gangishetty, Advocate holding for Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld.
Advocate for first party No. 5 conducted cross-examination and some more vital admissions are brought on record.
Therefore, they are also useful to reproduce the same which are as under:-
“भी इमत्ता ऩहशरीऩमंत शळकराेे आशे. भी स्लच्छतेचे काभ कयत शोताेे. २०१२ वाराऩमंत भी एअयऩोर्ट ऑथॉरयर्ी
ऑप इॊडिमा माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोताेे. शे खये की, वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे भॎनेजय शोताेे ल त्माॊच्मा शाताखारी भी काभ कयत शोताेे.
शे खये की, वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचे भॎनेजय शोताेे. २०१२ वारानॊतय प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा वलभानतऱाळी वॊफॊध
याहशरा नाशी ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच वलभानतऱालय काभ कयत शोताेे. काभाच्मा
हठकाणी ठेकेदाय मेत जात शोते ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा ठेकेदायाकिून ऩगाय शभऱत अवे. शे खये की,
२०१२ वारानॊतय भी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोताेे. भरा ज्मालेऱी काभालरुन काढण्मात आरे त्मालेऱी भी
प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेकिे काभारा शोताेे अवे भाझे म्शणणे आशे शे खये की, भाझी भागणी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेवलरुध्दच
आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा प्रस्तुत प्रकयणाळी कुठराशी वॊफॊध नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱालय
काभ कयण्माव वुरुलात केल्माऩावून ते काभ फॊद कयेऩमंत भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच काभ कयत शोताेे.
शे खये की, भी नभूद केरेरी एर.आम.वी ऩॉशरवी भाझे लैमक्क्तक नालाने शोती. शे खये की, वज्जन ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी कुठरी
कामदेळीय कायलाई केरी नाशी. स्लत्शून वाॊगते की, त्माॊना नोर्ीव हदरी शोती. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, श्री ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी
केरेरे आयोऩ ननयाधाय अवून प्रस्तुतच्मा प्रकयणाळी काशीशी एक वॊफॊध नाशी ल ते वलट आयोऩ खोर्े आशेत.”
Thereafter on behalf of second party filed evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22.
On the contrary first party No. 1 to 8 have not examined any independent witness to prove their
contentions, averments and objections raised in their Written Statement.
44.
My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex. O-5 including issue of employer-employee relationship between
the first party and second party and the entitlements of the reliefs claimed by the second party. According to second
party he was working from 2008-2009 with Air Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port as
Sweeper-cum-Labourer with first party. According to second party Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air
Port since its inception. It is specific stand of second party that he was appointed by and through M. A. D. C. for
performing sweeping, cleaning and other managerial work at Solapur Air Port since 2008-2009 on the wages of Rs.
4,000/- to 5,000/-. He was further used to work plantation and maintenance and watering to existence plants,
greenery was also done by second party. He also used to cleaning bathrooms, urinals on daily basis. Therefore,
work done by second party was perennial in nature and not ending in nature. According to second party the said
work is still in existence at Solapur Air Port. However, second party also admits that first party No. 5 was looking
after and has total control over the Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4. At the time of changing of control
and taking charge, the first party No. 3 and 4 have assured second party that he will be made permanent and will
be pay salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employees. It is further case of the second party that
he was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port regarding he will be paid Rs.
8,000/- to 9,000/- towards wages but amount was not received to second party. It is also contention of the second
party that he was given identity card being an employee of the Air Port Authority. He used to mark attendance
which was recorded by Air Port In-charge, Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 5
have continuously and consistently kept supervision and control over the second party. Alternatively it is the case of
the second party that as an eye wash camouflage, the services employed were shown as contract labour through
first party No. 6, 7 and 8 for using a weapon to give go-by to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights
of permanency and regularization of services. In short the second party claimed that he was and is employee of
first party No. 1 to 4.
45.
While deciding the core issue of employer-employee relationship between the second party and the first
party No. 1 to 4, the second party though claimed he was an employee of first party No. 1 to 4 and he have
submitted that the copies of documents at Ex. U-4, U-11 and U-20 respectively claiming that he was in the
employment since 2008 till 28/12/2015, that means more than approximately for 7 years of the service. It is
pertinent to note that the second party have not filed on record crucial documents mainly his appointment letter,
salary slip, documents relating to show his leave at relevant time and any contribution paid towards P. F. or E. S. I.
C. etc. etc. on record. It is oral contention of the second party that his services were supervised and managed by
3634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
first party No. 1 to 4 whereas he was examined himself below Ex. UW-1. In his cross-examination he admits that
he was appoint in the employment of Solapur Air Port at that time no notice was published in the newspaper
regarding the recruitment of the employees. Surprisingly he admits that one Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and
M/s. Shrikrishna Construction Contractor through whom he was appointed. He further admits that the Solapur Air
Port is transferred to Air Port Authority of India since 2012. The said Air Port of India never published any time
any advertisement in newspaper regarding recruitment of the employees.
Further he admits that he was not called for interview by the Air Port Authority of India nor he was issued
appointment letter. Surprisingly, he admits that Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and M/s. Shrikrishna Constriction
Contractor who are first party No. 6 to 8 used to send him another work during his employment. He admits that
after 2012 the officers of Air Port Authority of India never assured him regarding the permanency in the
employment. Further Air Port of India have not issued any identity card. All these vital admissions are self
explanatory to decide relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4. Further he admits that he was
given the entry pass at Air Port Solapur. The period of entry pass was expired on 30/04/2010 and first party No. 1
to 4 have issued same entry pass to second party for the period ending on 31/12/2015.
46.
Admittedly, no appointment orders are issued, no payment slips are issued to the second party nor
termination order issued to the second party. In his cross-examination conduced by and on behalf of first party No.
5 he surprisingly admits that his claim is against only first party No. 1 to 4. He denied that since his employment
till his termination he worked through contractor. The Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 2A (2) of the
I. D. Act conducted conciliation proceedings and after its failure issued certificate to second party to approach to
appropriate forum. The documents which are placed on record mainly the demand notice dated 16/07/2016
certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune and copy of entry pass valid till 30/04/2010
and entry pass issued by Solapur Air Port valid till 31/12/2015 and one page of attendance register having no
signature, seal or name of the employer.
47.
It is true that the second party filed application at Ex. U-8 for direction to produce some copies of
documents at Ex. U-8 and U-9. Both the applications are partly allowed by my Ld. Predecessor by orders dated
13/03/2019 and 02/03/2023. But first party failed to produce those documents. Surprisingly, the second party filed
application at Ex. U-11 for permission to lead secondary evidence before the Court. The said application was
allowed and second party is permitted to lead secondary evidence. Therefore, on behalf of second party filed list of
documents at Ex. U-11 and at Ex. U-14 copy of attendance register for the period 09/03/2014 to 18/06/2014 does
not bear name of employer or signature of any concerned supervisor/manager or authorized officer. At Ex. U-15
the second party himself to file document showing that handing over/taking over of Solapur Air Port of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India in pursuance to G. R. Dated 04/12/2012 the first party
was transferred to Air Port Authority of India in the year 2012.
Most surprising the document which is filed
by the second party by way secondary evidence at Ex. U-16, it is the photocopy of attendance register showing
muster was kept by Union Steel First Party No. 6 for the period August-2008 to February-2015 at Ex. U-17 is
another attendance register for the period 02/02/2015 to 31/12/2015 which does not bear name of employer,
signature of any manager or authorized officer nor filed on record any document vouchers or bank statement
showing that the second party was paid directly by first party No. 1 to 4 whereas his claim of reinstatement of
continuity of service and back wages against first party No. 1 to 4. The documents which are placed on record are
most clearly showing that the second party was in the employment of Union Steel Contractor first party No. 6 since
2008. Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against first party No. 1 to 5. Two corroborate documents his
cross-examination below Ex. UW-1 is more than sufficient to establish the relationship between the second party
and first party No. 1 to 4 those documents loudly speaking that the second party was in the employment through
contractor that is first party No. 6 to 8.
48.
It should not be ignored that the first party No. 2 to 4 filed the copy of annual maintenance contract (Civil)
2015-2016 for operational area at Solapur Air Port Page No. 1 to 154 at Ex. C-17. The contract agreement dated
20/10/2015 signed between the Air Port Authority of India and M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions for supplying
manpower to first party No. 1 to 4. Considering all these documents mainly in the light of oral admissions given by
the second party in his cross-examination shows that he was never directly appointed by first party No. 1 to 4 nor
first party No. 5 at any point of time. Whereas documents himself placed on record showing that he was employed
through contractor namely Union Steel since 2008. Therefore, he was employee of contractor and not of first party
No. 1 to 4 as principal employer. These documents shows that there is no relationship between the second party
and first party No. 1 to 5 at any point of time.
49.
It is needless to mention here that in view of the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor and
evidence led by the second party it is admitted position that the second party was well aware that he was appointed
through contractor. However, he was contended that the said contract was sham and bogus and camouflage. As per
Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, there was no declaration regarding sham
and bogus contract unless and until it is declared by the appropriate authority that the said contract was sham and
bogus, the second party cannot claim any benefits as mentioned in his prayer clause of Statement of Claim against
first party No. 1 to 5. The entire burden was cast upon second party to establish there is employer-employee
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3635
relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4 and 5. However, though the burden cast upon second
party but he miserably failed to file on record cogent documentary evidence such as his appointment order, wages
paid by the first party No. 1 to 4 & 5 or he was issued any notice in his tenure of employment or any such
document which establishes the relationship between the first party No. 1 to 5 but the most relevant document
material are missing from the record.
50.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nilgiri (cited supra) where it is observed that unless it is proved by an appointment letter, salary etc. etc., it cannot
be said that there is any employer-employee relationship, moreover, unless there is reference to whether the
contract between the first party No. 1 and others regarding contract is sham and bogus, Tribunal cannot be
decided without referring such type of dispute to the Tribunal. On the contrary from the record first party No. 6 to
8 since beginning are the contractors.
51.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of International Air Port Authority of India Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers’ Union 2009 (123) FLR. has laid down that the Tribunal has to comply tests like
who pays the salary, who has power to remove/dismiss from service, or to initiate disciplinary action. In short who
has direct control and supervision over employees to decide whether the contract is nominal or only on paper. It is
further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unless there is invocation under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Tribunal cannot direct the principal employer to absorb or regularize services of the
contract labour. It is also held that the supervision and control of principal employer will not be only test to hold
that they are direct employees of the principal employer.
52.
On behalf of first party No. 5 so many observations are relied to show that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the first party and first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. In all the observations in sum and
substance are similar as discussed above. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is claim of the second party that he
was terminated on 28/12/2015 by the first party No. 1 to 4. In fact it is brought on record that he was contract
labour. Her termination appears to be non renewal of contract with first party No. 1 to 5. Therefore, termination
does not constituted retrenchment also. Therefore, he is not entitled to get relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service and to regularize in the employment since 2009 against first party No. 1 to 5. In absence of any employer-
employee relationship though the second party examined himself but failed to establish that there is relationship of
employer-employee between first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. Therefore, claim of reinstatement and back
wages against first party no. 1 to 5 required to be answered in negative.
As second party failed to prove the relationship between himself and first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, issue
is required to be answered in the negative.
53.
The another issue is in respect of entitlement of relief of second party. It is the case of the first party No. 1
to 4 since beginning that the first party No. 6 to 8 appointed the second party paid the salary, supervise and
manage his services, he was allotted work in different places other than first party. It is also contention that the
first party No. 6 to 8 he received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 and the first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal
employer of the second party. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demand of second
party and they are duty bound to comply all the statutory provisions of Labour Laws, Standing Orders, Circulars
related with second party’s employment.
54.
During the course of argument Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 fairly submitted that
during crucial period of termination of second party was not paid salary for the month of November and
December-2015. The contract with first party No. 1 to 4 came to an end on 31/12/2015 due to non renewal of
contract they are unable to provide employment to second party. However, they are ready to pay unpaid wages of
two months. It is pertinent to note here that though the second party in his statement of claim contended that work
which he was performed still in existence at first party No. 1 to 4. However, to show this fact neither filed any
document nor examined any independent witness to establish that the work is available. Mere allegations in the
Statement of Claim are not sufficient to hold that the work is available.
55.
At the same time it should not be ignored that admittedly since 2008 till 20/12/2015 he was working as
sweeping, cleaning and due to non renewal of contract, he was terminated without issuing notice by first party No.
6 to 8. At the most, he is entitled to get two months salary and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments that if reinstatement is not possible then concerned employee should be given lump-sum compensation
considering his 8 years service through contractor, notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other legal dues as
per applicable Law to the second party by first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- to second party, it will be met the ends of justice and no prejudice will be caused either to first party No.
6 to 8 or to the second party.
56.
Therefore, in this angle of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case I come to conclusion that
second party is entitled to get lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final of his claim. Therefore,
issue regarding entitlement should required to be answered in partly in affirmative and I answer the same in partly
in affirmative. I find much substance in the statement made on behalf first party No. 1 to 4 and first party No. 5,
the observations relied by the first parties are helpful to decide the issue of contract labour by this Tribunal.
3636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Though on behalf of second party some observations are relied but they are not helpful to the facts and
circumstances of the present case in hand. With due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court I mentioned here that
the observations relied by the second party are not helpful to grant relief claimed by him.
57.
Therefore, reference needs to be answered partly in affirmative against the first party No. 6 to 8 only. With
this, I proceed to pass following award:-
AWARD
1)
Reference (IT) No. 03/2017 is answered partly in affirmative against first party No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
First Party No. 6 to 8 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to second party within period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of award.
3)
No order as to costs.
4)
Copies of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.
5)
Proceedings is closed.
Date: 06-12-2025
M. R. KUMBHAR, Presiding Office
amj/-
Assistant Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Solapur.
Argued on: 05/12/2025
Dictated on: 05 & 06/12/2025
Transcribed on: 08, 09 & 10/12/2025
Checked & Signed on: 11/12/2025
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 708.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार सेंरल एजवएिन जमजनस्ट्री; एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मिाराष्ट्र एयरृोटव डेवलृमेंट अ ॉररटी; मेससव
श्रीकृ्ि कंस्ट्रक्िंस; मेससव यूजनयन स्ट्टील; श्री प्रमोि टी. कुलाल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती अम्बुबाई
चन्द्रिेखर फुलारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिम औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 04/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
17.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-42]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 708.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 04/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Central Aviation
Ministry; Airport Authority of India; Maharashtra Airport Development Authority; M/s. Shrikrishna
Constructions; M/s. Union Steel; Mr. Pramod T. Kulal and Smt. Ambubai Chandrashekhar Fulari which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.04.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-42]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3637
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SOLAPUR
Presided Over by M. R. Kumbhar, Presiding Officer
Reference (IT) No. 04/2017
Exhibit No.:
Dispute between:-
1)
Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
R/o. Govt. of India, New Delhi, Delhi
2)
Manager, Airport Authority of India,
R/o. A. N. Union Office, Port Cabin, New Airport
Colony, Parshiwada, Sahara-Andheri Road,
Mumbai – 400 009.
3)
Airport Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
4)
Office Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
5)
Maharashtra Airport Development Authority,
R/o. World Trade Centre, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai.
6)
M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions,
R/o. Block No. A/505, Yashraj, Bhekrao Nagar,
S. 177, Phursungi, Pune – 412 308.
7)
M/s. Union Steel,
R/o. B-Wing, 11 Floor, Flat No. 206,
Varsha Adarsha Co-op. Housing Society,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) Mumbai – 400 024.
8)
Mr. Pramod T. Kulal,
R/o. 4-A, Aaji Sainik Nagar, Vijapur Road,
Solapur.
… First Parties
And:-
Smt. Ambubai Chandrashekhar Fulari
Age: 41 Years; Occupation : Nil;
R/o. Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Hotigi Road,
Solapur
… Second Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances:-
Advocate for First Parties No.1 To 4 :- Mr. S. S. Chiwari & S.S. Bendre
Advocate for First Party No. 5
:- Mr. V. B. Marathe
Advocate for First Party No. 6
:- Mr. G. H. Kulkarni
Advocate for First Party No. 7
:- Mr. B. T. Jadhav
Advocate for First Party No. 8
:- Mr. L. A. Gawali
3638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Advocate for Second Party
:- Mr. V. R. Deshpande
AWARD
(Delivered on:- 06/12/2025)
1.
As per certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune to second Party Smt. Ambubai
Chandrashekhar Fulari as per Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the I. D. Act‘
for brevity). After completion of mandatory 45 days of filing his dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore,
approached this Tribunal and directly filed her Statement of Claim under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act
for adjudication on 07/04/2017 in respect of dispute relating to reinstatement with full back wages and continue
service with status and benefits of permanency or regularization at Solapur Air Port.
2.
The Second Party has filed her Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and contended that she was working with Air
Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port from the year 2008-09 as Sweeper-cum-Labour with
First Party. The Secretary Central Aviation Ministry Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has
managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air Port Authority since its inception. The Second Party further
contended that initially she was appointed by and through Maharashtra Air Port Development Corporation (In short M
A D C) for performing sweeping, cleaning and other manual work at Solapur Air Port. She was being paid Rs. 4,000/-
to 5,000/- by M A D C. The area of Solapur Air Port is 365 Acre. Hence, the work of cleaning and sweeping was of
big nature and is required to be done on day to day basis. Beside the office control tower, other office rooms, godown,
entrance road, internal roads were also required to be clean and maintain properly and for that purpose services of
second party were required on day to day basis.
3.
She further contended that the work of plantation and maintenance of trees, watering to existing plants and
greenery was also done by the second party on daily basis. She used to clean bath-rooms, urinals, etc. etc. on daily
basis. Above work was performing as per direction and instruction of first party No. 3 and 4. According to second
party all above work is of perennial in nature and is of non ending in nature. All the works as stated above are still in
existence and will continue till existence of Air Port at Solapur.
4.
The second party further contended that M A D C i. e. First Party No. 5 was looking after and has total
control over the Solapur Air Port after 2012. The Solapur Air Port was under the control of Air Port In-charge and
office In-charge of Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4 at the time of change of control and at the time of
taking charge, First Party No. 3 and 4, they assured the second party that she will be made permanent and will be
giving pay, Salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employee. Therefore, she kept bonafide belief
towards assurance and continued her above mentioned work at Solapur Air Port under their control. She further
adhere that in the year 2014 second party was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air
Port Solapur that she will be paid Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month wages. However, she did not receive such amount
of wages and she was never given benefit of permanency though she was working continuously from the year 2008-
09. The wages paid to second party were far less than the statutory rate of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the first party
has committed breach of the statutory provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
Thereafter she was given Identity Card being the employee of the Air Port Authority. She specifically
contended that the attendance was to be marked and recorded by the Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge Solapur
Air Port. Both were having supervisory and managerial control over the second party. As an eye wash and camouflage
services the employees were shown as contract labourer through first parties No. 6, 7 and 8. The said trick was used
as weapon to give go-by or by-pass to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights of the second party.
Than even after the changes the so called labour contractors on paper. The second party was continued on her work as
per earlier system method and was doing some work as before.
5.
According to second party the work of daily nature/permanent nature cannot be allotted to labour contractor
and only work of temporary and continue nature can be allotted to labour contractor. The daily supervision and
control was of first parties No. 3 and 4. The paper work shown of first party to engage second party through labour
contractor was not legal, proper and bonafide. Rather the said paper work was done only with intention to deny
legitimate rights including permanency regularization of second party.
6.
The second party further contended that one Mr. Sajjan Nichal who was working as Manager has instructed
the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C. policy otherwise threatened to terminate their services. So the
second party along with other co-workers took the L. I. C. policy and also becoming members of Trade Unions.
Further in the month of December-2015 the second party and other co-workers were purposely not paid monthly
wages and during that period second party and other co-workers were forced to sign below agreement/affidavit/
document/contract prepared by them, which was not read over by the second party in their language known to them.
The second party and other co-workers were put under tremendous pressure and was subjected to harassing for
signing said agreement but second party remain firm in signing the said arbitrary, ex-party and illegal agreement.
Therefore, she was not paid wages of November and December-2015. Therefore, second party and other co-workers
were not allowed to sign the muster-roll from December-2015 onward. They refused to provide employment to
second party.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3639
7.
According to the second party she was worked since 2008 to December-2015 with Solapur Air Port without
any break. The work performing by her is of perennial in nature and work is still in existence. The first party refused
to give employment only to deprive legitimate right of permanency and regularization.
8.
The second party lastly contended that she has completed more than 240 days service in each and every year
with Solapur Air Port who is the principal employer of the second party. Also first party No. 1-4 are principal
employer of the second party. However, the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provision and
procedure of Law as well as due process of Law. Even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1
to 4 by violating provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act as well as Section 4(c) of Standing Orders and relevant
circulars, regulations etc. etc. At the time of termination the first party has not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay,
nor paid compensation before terminating service. The termination of second party is by way of unfair labour
practices and sole intention is to deprive all benefits of permanency and regularization by violating principles of
natural justice, equity and fair play. The first party have adopted the forbidden policy of hire and fire. Therefore, the
second party issued legal notice dated 07/01/2016 through their advocate. However, the first party have given false
and contrary as well as evasive reply to it. Hence, the second party has filed Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2016 in
Industrial Court, Solapur. However, the said Court returned the complaint to second party with liberty to approach
appropriate authority/or court. Hence, the second party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter
submitted her case for conciliation before Conciliation Officer and Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central),
Pune.
The Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune has issued certificate dated
09/12/2016 as provided under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the second party approached this Court and filed
her statement of claim in detail and prayed that the first party be directed to reinstate the second party at Solapur Air
Port from 28/12/2015 with full back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits and to grant status
and benefit of permanency regularization at Solapur Air Port from the date of completion of 240 days service at first
instance from 2009 with difference in wages and allowances along with 18% interest thereon and for unpaid salary of
month of November, December-2015 with 18% interest thereon till its actual realization.
9.
After submitting the statement of claim second party my Ld. Predecessor issued notice to all the first parties
No. 1 to 8. In response to that Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate with Shri. S. S. Bendre, Ld. Advocate appeared
through First Parties No. 1 to 4 and filed detailed Written Statement at Ex. C-5 on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V.
B. Marthe, Ld. Advocate put his appearance and filed Say and Written Statement at Ex. CA-4. Shri. G. H. Kulkarni,
Ld. Advocate on behalf of first party No. 6, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. L. A.
Gawali, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 8 though put their appearance but failed to file their Written Statement.
Therefore, my Ld. Predecessor by an order dated 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against first party
No. 6 to 8.
10.
The first party No. 1 to 4 by filing their Written Statement at Ex. C-5 denied all the contentions, averments
and statements made in the statement of claim. It is specific case of the first party No. 1 to 4 that second party was
worked with Solapur Air Port are not true and correct. According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was
appointed by contractors that is first party No. 6 to 8. That the contents in respect of control, supervision by Solapur
Air Port since inception are not true and correct. Accordingly, the first party No. 3 was having supervisory control
over the Solapur Air since December-2012. The appointment of second party are denied specifically. The first party
No. 1 to 4 never used to give direction or any instruction for work. However, it is admitted that in respect of control
over the Solapur Air Port after 2012 is with Air Port Authority of India. That the first party No. 1 to 4 never assured
about permanency and regularization or other consequential benefits to the second party because second party was
never under the control of first party No. 1 to 4. The first party No. 1 to 4 never promised to pay an amount of Rs. 8-9
thousands per month towards wages. Then first party No. 1 to 4 never paid any wages to second party. Therefore,
committing any breach of minimum wages does not arise. First party No. 1 to 4 have never issued any identity card to
the second party being an employee of Air Port Authority of India and or of Air Port In-charge never marked
attendance nor kept supervision over the second party.
11.
According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was appointed by various contractors and working with
various contractors. The second party was working under direct control of various contractors that is first party No. 6
to 8 such as Union Steels, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Constructions. The first party No. 1 to 4 have never maintained
muster-roll for attendance and for work performance of second party neither assured at any time regarding
permanency as alleged in Statement of Claim. Moreover, as per contention of Statement of Claim first party No. 1 to 4
are not concerned with present dispute raised by the second party which is vague in nature.
12.
The entire contentions of statement of claim was denied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and contended that they
have not done any act such as termination, retrenchment or any act with intend to deprive legitimate benefit of
permanency or regularization of second party as the first party No. 1 to 4 never appointed the second party. Therefore,
question of illegal termination and violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act at all not arise as alleged against him.
13.
The first party No. 1 to 4 lastly contended that Solapur Air Port was under the control and supervision of M.
A. D. C. till December 2012. Thereafter Air Port is under the control of Air Port Authority of India that is first party
3640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
No. 1 to 4 that the first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concern about the appointment made by M. A. D. C. during
their tenure. The first party No. 1 to 4 never appoints any labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port, Air
Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to registered contractor that is first party No. 6 and 8
namely M/s. Shrikishna Construction, Solapur and thereafter M/s. Pramod T. Kulal, Solapur. The Air Port Authority
of India has continued work on contract awarded by M. A. D. C. for operational reasons till appointment of new
contractor. It is specific contention of first party No. 1 to 4 that the second party is appointed by the contractor and
therefore, the second party is removed by the said contractor. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages,
compensation, benefits provided as per Labour Laws and Standing Orders, implement the circulars etc. etc. as the
second party was under the control as well as supervision of first party No. 6 to 8.
Therefore, their services are controlled and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. As the second party has
received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal employer of second party.
Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demands of second party and duty bound to comply all
the statutory provisions of the Labour Laws, standing Orders, Circulars relating with second party and prayed that the
claim against first party No. 1 to 4 may kindly be dismissed.
14.
The first party No. 5 in their Written Statement filed below Ex. CA-4 denied all the contents, averments and
allegations made against first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim are false, baseless. It is further denied
that the second party was working with first party No. 5 as Sweeper-cum-Labourer. Further denied that the second
party was appointed by first party No. 5 at Mumbai for performing work of sweeping and cleaning and was paying
wages of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month.
15.
The first party No. 5 also denied that the first party No. 5 was required to maintain and clean the property at
Solapur. Further denied that the first party No. 5 was to maintain work of plantation and maintenance and of watering
the existing plants to clean the bath-rooms, urinals etc. Further denied that the work is of perennial in nature and not
ending. The contentions of statement of claim are false and baseless. It is fact that the first party No. 5 was looking
after Solapur Air Port till December-2012 as regards first party No. 3 and 4. This party is not concerned with the
contents raised in Statement of Claim against them due to want of knowledge.
16.
The first party No. 5 lastly contended that they have never engaged or appointed the second party at any time
till its tenure. In fact this party used to give work of purely temporarily in nature. Therefore, contractor not only that
the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was got done on contractual basis. Therefore,
there is no employer-employee relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party at any point of time till
December-2012. There is no compliance against the first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim at para No.
20 clearly shows that she is claiming reinstatement with full back wages from 28/12/2015. Moreover, the second party
was admitted that after December-2012, Solapur Air Port was handed over as per Government Resolution of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India. Therefore, first party No. 5 was unnecessarily made party
in this reference. The contents regarding continuous work from 2008-09 till 2010 as this first party never appointed
the second party one Mr. Sajjan Nichal had never instructed the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C.
Policy.
In fact the second party and co-worker of contractor M/s. Union Steel and the said contractor had taken
policy of its workers which is knowing to do with Mr. Sajjan Nichal. Therefore this first party No. 5 is not liable
either to reinstate or to give back wages or any such prayers made against them. Therefore, reference against first
party No. 5 requires to be rejected and prayed to dismiss the same.
17.
The first party No. 6, 7 and 8 though appeared through Ld. Advocates, but failed to file their Written
Statement if any on record. The Ld. Advocates have participated in respective dates of proceedings. My Ld.
Predecessor below Ex. U-1 on 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against these first parties.
18.
From the rival contentions and submissions made in the Statement of Claim as well as Written Statement of
first party No. 1 to 5 issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor below Ex. O-7 on 06/08/2019 and my findings to
them are as under:-
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1)
Whether the Second Party is entitled for the reliefs claimed in
the statement of claim?
… Partly in Affirmative
against First Party
No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
Whether the Second Party proves that there exist an employer-
employee relationship between Second Party and First Party?
… In the negative in
respect of First Party
No. 1 to 5 And
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3641
In the affirmative in
respect of First Party
No. 6 to 8
3)
What Award?
… As per final Award.
REASONS
19.
Second Party in respect of their contention raised in Statement of Claim have filed some copies of documents
with List Ex. U-4 comprising of demand notice dated 16/07/2016 given by second party and certificate dated
09/12/2016 issued by Conciliation Officer, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune. Second party also filed
additional documents along with list Ex. U-11 comprising of copy of attendance register regarding second
party(Exh.U-14), charge report of handing over/taking over charge form Solapur Airport Government of Maharashtra
to Airports Authority of India (Exh. U-15), copy of muster roll maintained by Union Steel (Exh. U-16), copy of
attendance register regarding second party (Exh. U-17) and copy of legal notice issued by second party through Adv.
Kashid (Exh. U-18) and therefore, second party also filed some documents along with list Ex. U-20 comprising of
original entry permit given to second party by Incharge Solapur Air Port and photocopy of attendance register
showing attendance of second party with Solapur Air Port Incharge for the month of September-2008 (Exh. U-21). On
the contrary the first party No. 2 to 4 have also filed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-17 comprising of
copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (civil) 2015-16 for operational Area at Soalpur Airport and on behalf of first
party No. 5 have placed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-13 comprising of copy of letter dated 12/07/2013,
copy of letter dated 07/10/2013, copy of letter dated 31/12/2013, copy of letter dated 30/01/2013, copy of letter dated
26/05/2013, copy of letter dated 08/04/2013, copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2013, statement of
payment and copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2014. The first party No. 6 to 8 neither filed Written
Statement nor produced any document on record.
20.
The second party have filed application at Ex. U-8 for production of documents which was partly allowed by
my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13/08/2019 and directed to produce the documents called for. Again second
party filed another application for production of documents at Ex. U-9 which was partly allowed vide order dated
02/03/2023. Thereafter second party have again filed application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
below Ex. U-10, U-12. Both applications were allowed vide Order dated 09/02/2024.
21.
The second party to prove her claim made in the Statement of Claim have examined herself at Ex. UW-1 by
filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. She was duly cross-examined by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 5
respectively but no cross order passed against the first party No. 6 to 8. Thereafter on behalf of second party filed
evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22. On the contrary the first party No. 1 to 4, 5 and 6 to 8 have not led any oral
evidence before this tribunal.
22.
Conciliation officer as per direction of this tribunal produced copies of documents with list Ex. C-20 that is
conciliation proceedings given by Conciliation officer And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune(containing
102 pages) on 23/8/2024.
Heard Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate for second party and Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with
Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate for first party No. 5, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. G. H.
Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 and on behalf of first party No. 8 Shri. L. A. Gawali chose remained
absent after filing their vakalatnamas. In addition to this Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate filed Written Synopsis
of argument at Ex. U-24 with list of case-laws. On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Bendre,
Ld. Advocate also placed on record Written Synopsis of argument at Ex. C-23 with list of citations. On the contrary
on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate filed notes of
argument at Ex. CA-7 with list of citations. Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 submitted and
admitted that the second party was in the employment of first party No. 6 to 8 they are contractors. Their contract was
terminated at the end of December-2015. Due to non renewal of contract the services of second party was terminated
and first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay two months unpaid salary only and prayed to pass appropriate order.
23.
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate Shri. V. R. Deshpande for second party submitted in detail
as per the contentions of statement of claim. With the help of oral as well as documentary evidence, he further
submitted that the second party was not paid wages of November and December-2015 because the second party and
other co-workers have refused to sign agreement. Therefore, they were not allowed to sign muster roll since
December-2015 onward and also refused to provide employment since then. He further submitted that the second
party and other co-workers have worked from 2008 with Solapur Air Port till end of December-2015 without any
break. He further submitted that the work performed by the second party is of perennial in nature and the said work is
still in existence. However, for no reason from December-2015 the first party have refused to give employment to
3642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
second party with intention to deprive second party from their legitimate benefits of permanency.
24.
He further strongly submitted that the second party has completed more than 240 days of service in each and
every year with Solapur Air Port Authority that is first party No. 2 to 4. Solapur Air Port who is the principal
employer of the second party. So also first party No. 1 to 4 are principal employer of the second party. He then
submitted that the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provisions of Law and procedure of
Law and deprived the benefit of permanency even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1 to
4. Solapur Air Port authority have failed to observe the provision of Section 25-F and provisions of Section 4(c) of the
Standing Orders relevant circulars as well as Resolutions passed from time to time. He put his great emphasis on the
issue of termination and submitted that the first party have not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay, compensation
before terminating services of the second party. Termination of second party is hastily, abruptly and by engaging into
unfair labour practices with sole intention to deprive from benefit of permanency. Therefore, termination is illegal and
not bonafide. The first party also violated principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. They have adopted
forbidden policy of hire and fire.
25.
Then he invited my attention towards legal notice dated 07/01/2016 issued through their advocate to which
second party received false and contrary and evasive reply then he submitted that the second party and other co-
workers have filed complaint of unfair labour practices bearing ULP No. 35/2016 before this Court. However, the
Industrial Court, Solapur returned the said complaint with liberty to approach appropriate forum. Therefore, second
party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter submitted case for conciliation with Regional
Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune and after filing application to implement first party No. 6 to 8 they were
made parties to the proceedings. He further submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune had
issued certificate dated 09/12/2016 as per Section 2A of the I. D. Act to file this reference before this Tribunal.
Therefore, reference made by the second party is maintainable.
26.
Then he invited my attention towards the order below Ex. U-8 and U-9 and submitted that though as per
direction of this Tribunal regarding muster-roll, payment register, labour contract agreements, licence etc. etc., but
first party failed to produce the same. Then he invited my attention towards oral evidence of the second party at Ex.
UW-1 and put his great emphasis on the list of document at Ex. U-11 and submitted that the second party is workman
and workers does not have any custody of original documents. Therefore, second party has filed documents and call
for the said documents from the custody of first party but in spite of directions to produce by this Tribunal first party
have not produced documents. Then he invited my attention towards order below Ex. U-12 and submitted as per the
permission of this Tribunal. The second party produced some copies of documents along with list Ex. U-12 which is
at Ex. U-14 to U-18 i. e. copies of muster rolls, documents of handling over the Air Port Management, legal notice
etc.. Those are required to be read in evidence. Then filed some more copies of documents with list Ex. U-20 and U-
21 respectively. He then submitted that the second party as proved his case that the termination of service from
28/12/2015 is illegal and act of unfair labour practices. Therefore, second party is entitled for the permanency along
with consequential benefits and from the month of January 2009. According to Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate
oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of second party have gone unchallenged, unrebutted or uncontroverted.
Therefore, reference of second party is required to be allowed and prayed to allow the same.
27.
He lastly submitted that the first party has not lead its own oral/documentary evidence to prove their defense,
objection and contentions in Written Statement. First parties have neither produced any document in their custody
even after directions from this Tribunal nor producing their own evidence. So also first party No. 6 to 8 have also not
lead their own evidence nor entered into witness box. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the first
party. He further submitted that as per settled Law, pleadings and written statement is not evidence. The first party
have taken adjournments but failed to file their own evidence. Therefore, defense cannot be liable to be considered for
want of their evidence and prayed to allow reference with all prayers made therein.
28.
He relied upon the following citations:-
i) Iswar Bhai C Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 1341)
ii) Reportable judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 20/12/2024
and relied upon observations at para No. 27 and 28 which reads as -
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead
by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can
reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice
and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a
positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of
labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3643
by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following
extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith.
However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they
have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same
would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.
iii)
Then he relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court between – The Mysore Electrical
Industries Ltd. Vs. Engineering And General Workers Union decided on 09/10/2023 in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2023
(L-RES).
iv) Then he relied upon observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 (Shripal &
Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad) and relied upon observations in para No. 15 which reads as under:-
15.
It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several
years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the
Employer‘s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference
under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally,
workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as
dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a
recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India 3 in the following paragraphs:
―22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the
rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding
the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only
mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental operations.
……
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often
face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral
to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their
roles mirror those of regular employees. Such mis-classification deprives workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen
in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions
being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not
only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such
as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This
lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
3644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
v)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajranagar
Coal Mines Workers’ Union in Civil Appeal No. 4092-4093/2024 relied upon observations at para No. 22 and 23
which reads as under:-
―22. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to
a conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated
previously, we do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However,
as the case was argued at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals.
What we have referred to here in-above are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High
Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of
work, continuous working of the workmen, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals
filed by the appellant.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and
therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages‖.
vi)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer
I/R to Mangmat. of FCI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2417 – 2418 of 2014 and relied upon observations at para No. 34.
―34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that
when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not
give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-
hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for
regularization would be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize
such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may
amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Art. 14 of the Constitution. Further,
such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility
requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that
similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and
the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction
of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of the left over
workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative
of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by
upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision‖.
vii) He lastly relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court between the Air India Statutory corporation
Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. decided on 06/12/1996, Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-34 of 1996 and prayed
to allow the reference of section party with all prayers made therein.
29.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate submitted in detail as per
the written statement filed on record. He further submitted that the second party prepared the present reference against
stoppage of their work by the contractor and claiming the benefit of permanency and regularization at Solapur Air
Port from the completion of their 240 days of their service at first instance i. e. December 2009 and also claimed
difference of that first wages along with 18% p. a. interest therein. He invited my attention towards the Written
Statement filed on record and contention therein and submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 mainly contended that
the reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of the back door entry who come in the employment by using back
door entry must go through back door. He then submitted that Solapur Air Port Authority was under the control and
supervision of M. A. D. C. first party No. 5 till December-2012 and thereafter under control of Air Port Authority of
India that is first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concerned about appointment
made by M. A. D. C. during their tenure. He put his great emphasis on the document filed by the second party and
submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 never appoint any Labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port then
he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to the registered contractor
that is first party No. 6 to 8. The second party was appointed by the contractor and therefore, second party is removed
by the said contractor. Therefore, the first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages, compensation, benefits as per the
provisions of Labour Laws.
30.
Then he submitted that the second party was under the control of the first party No. 6 to 8 contractor at
relevant time. Therefore, second party was working for the contractor. Moreover, work of second party was controlled
and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. All these facts were admitted by the second party in their cross-
examination.
31.
He lastly submitted that the second party was never appointed by the first party No. 1 to 4 in the year 2009
whereas they were appointed by contractor namely Union Steel, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Construction i. e. first
party No. 6 to 8 for day to day work of cleaning and maintenance work at Solapur Air Port. The said fact is admitted
by the second party in their cross-examination. Therefore, the employer for second party is of first party No. 6 to 8.
The second party was never controlled nor paid by the M. A. D. C. The demand vouchers were prepared and
maintained by the M. A. D. C. Their work at Solapur Air Port was stopped by the first party No. 6 to 8 that is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3645
contractor. The attendance register produced on record, it does not bear signature and office seal of Air Port Authority
of India nor appeared seal of Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India never
published any advertisement for appointment or never initiated procedure for recruitment of second party nor issued
any identity card as claimed by the second party. Therefore, the present reference is not tenable and maintainable as
per Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. He invited my attention towards definition of retrenchment and
submitted that the termination of workman service due to non renewal of fixed term of contract or the termination of
such contract as per its term does not constitute retrenchment. He further submitted that the service contract of first
party No. 6 to 8 was completed, its tenure and same was not continued and hence, the work allotted through
contractor to second party come to an end. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between first party
No. 1 to 4 and second party nor there is no any appointment nor made any payment nor made any supervision or
control. Therefore, question of violation of Section 25-F and illegal termination does not arise and also question of
payment of compensation does not arise and prayed to reject reference of second party.
32.
He further adhere that the second party can approach directly to the M. A. D. C. i. e. first party No. 5 as
initial period of 240 days service was completed prior to December 2012 at Solapur Air Port. Therefore, the present
reference at all not tenable and maintainable against first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the same.
33.
He relied upon various observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court in which Ex.
C-23 page (No. 7 A) State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293 wherein it is held that, ―Appointment –
Nature of appointment: There is estoppel against challenging nature of appointment once having duly accepted the
same: Having accepted contractual appointment, respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their
appointment.
B]
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 01 wherein in para No. 34 and 36 it is held that -
34. …………..
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with
the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the
same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes
to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis,
the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he
would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless
the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment'
in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould
the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to
continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden
of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
36.
While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent,
courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual
in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be
true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some
employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would
not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who
has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will
be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a
contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power,
that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or
3646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be
getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After
all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept
a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context
that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned
knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The
claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be
considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making
regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been
working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the
nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the
procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of
constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
C]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal and others (2011) SCC 429 wherein in para No. 8 of the said judgment it
is held that -
8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in
pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had
been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16
should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an
employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of
compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process,
can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be `litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years,
let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not
working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing
that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the
cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or
contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for
framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
part time temporary employees.
(v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
D]
State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247
E]
Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 300
F]
K. K. Suresh V. Food Corpn. Of India (2018) 17 SCC
641
G]
Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 1417
H]
Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Anr. AIR 2014 SC 1848
I]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001 SC
3527
J]
Jt. Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors. [2025 (185) FLR
864 SC]
And prayed that observations relied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and the disputed question therein
is similar to that of the dispute raised by the second party in present case in hand. Therefore, observations of the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3647
Hon’ble Supreme Court are helpful to the case of the first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the claim of second
party against First Party No. 1 to 4.
34.
On the contrary Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 5 vehemently submitted that the
present reference is referred by the Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune by its certificate dated
09/12/2016 which is placed on record for determination of dispute between parties. The second party raised
demand on 01/07/2016 for their reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages from
completion of 240 days in service. He read over certificate issued by Regional Commissioner (Central) Pune and
submitted that the second party raised dispute under Section 2A of the I. D. Act in regarding termination from
service by the Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted certificate was issued as mandatory of completion of
45 days of filing/raising dispute by second party before Conciliation Officer as provided under the I. D. Act then he
read over Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and Written Statement filed on record at Ex. CA-4.
35.
He put his great emphasis on the issue that there was no employer-employee relationship between first
party No. 5 and second party. He further submitted that first party No. 5 used to give work purely temporary in
nature through contractor not only that the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was
got done on contract basis. In the present reference contractors are made parties as first party No. 6 to 8. Therefore,
it is clear that the second party is admitting that she was appointing by and through contractor. Her claim if any is
against first party No. 6 to 8 then he invited my attention towards issues at Ex. O-7 and submitted that the second
party miserably failed to prove issues framed by this Tribunal.
36.
He lastly submitted that the second party adduced her oral evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief at Ex. UW-1 also filed copies of attendance register at Ex. U-14 for the period from March-
2014 to June-2014 which appears no seal and signature at Ex. U-15 letter of handing over Solapur Air Port from
Government of Maharashtra to the Air Port Authority of India dated 17/12/2012 at Ex. U-16. Muster Roll of Union
Steel i. e. First Party No. 7 for the period August 2008 to February 2015 and lastly at Ex. U-17 attendance register
for the period 02/02/2015 to 29/12/2015 which also not appears signature or stamp. All these documents are self
explanatory to establish his relationship of the employer-employee between first party No. 6 to 8 and second party.
First Party No. 5 unnecessarily made party in the present reference on the point of mis-joinder of necessary party,
reference against first party No. 5 is required to be rejected and prayed to reject the same.
37.
Then he submitted that it is well settled Law that unless the employer-employee relationship between
contract labour i. e. second party and the first party No. 5 is proved the claim of second party is not maintainable.
The burden to prove the relationship is obviously on the second party and hence, second party miserably failed to
bring on record any documentary evidence regarding their appointment orders, wages paid and supervision and
controlled by the employer. Therefore, the second party failed to prove that there existence any employer-employee
relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party and prayed that to reject the claim of second party
against first party No. 5.
38.
He relied upon the observations in -
i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (3) SCC 514
“wherein it is held that, “Employment of the workmen for doing a particular piece of work is at the instance of the
producer or the merchants on an ad hoc basis or job to job basis and, thus, the same may not lead to the conclusion
that relationship of employer and employee has came into being. ….”
ii)
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Taj Sats Air Caterers Ltd. And Another,
reported in 2019 (161) FLR 109 (Bombay High Court).
iii)
Rajesh Shah Vs. Their Workmen, United Workers Association & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) MhL. J. 943
(Bombay High Court).
iv)
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Ramchandran and Ors., reported in 2023 (1) SCC 463 (Supreme Court), and
prayed that the observations relied upon and on behalf of first party No. 5 as well as first party No. 1 to 4 also are
helpful to case of first party and prayed to pass appropriate order.
39.
On the contrary Shri. G. H. Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 submitted that in spite of given
repeated intimation first party No. 6 failed to give material instructions and documents and they have neither filed
W. S. nor led any evidence or filed any document and lastly prayed to pass appropriate order.
40.
On the contrary Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate fairly submitted that the first party No. 7 is required to
pay unpaid wages of two months from November-2015 and December 2015 and prayed to pass appropriate order.
41.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 8 none appeared nor submitted any oral submissions
reference proceeded ex-party since beginning.
42.
Having heard oral submissions of all the Ld. Advocates. I have gone through the contents of Statement of
Claim in which second party prayed to reinstate with continuity of service and full back wages along with benefits
3648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of permanency/regularization in service since 2009. I have gone through all the demands raised on behalf of
second party and documents placed by the second party as well as the first party and the Regional Commissioner of
Labour (Central) Pune – cum – Conciliation Officer with list Ex. C-20 then I have gone through oral evidence led
by the second party and first party No. 1 to 5. First Party No. 6 to 8 chose remained absent. They have neither filed
their W. S. nor conducted cross-examination or not filed any copies of documents. I have also gone through written
synopsis of the argument filed on behalf of second party as well as first party No. 1 to 5. I have carefully gone
through observations relied by both the parties and considered oral submissions of the Ld. Advocates.
43.
The second party approached this Tribunal as per the certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 09/12/2016. The second party in the Statement of Claim prayed
mainly to reinstate herself at Ex. UW-1 and reiterated entire contentions of Statement of claim as it is on oath.
However, in her cross-examination conducted by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 by Shri. S. H. Chiwari, Ld.
Advocate some admission are brought on record. They are useful to reproduce as under:-
“शे खये की, २००८ वारी भी प्रथभत् वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय काभ वुरु केरे ल त्मालेऱी वज्जन ननचऱ शे भॎनेजय शोते.
शे खये की, काम कयामचे त्माफाफतचे आदेळ श्री. ननचऱ शे देत शोते ल केरेल्मा काभाचा ऩगाय देखीर तेच देत शोते. शे खये की, श्री
ननचऱ शे भशायाष्ट्र वलभान प्राधधकयणाचे अधधकायी शोते. शे खये की, भी काभालय रागरी त्मावाठी नोकयबयतीवाठी कुठरीशी
जाहशयात वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयणाने ल एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने हदरी नव्शती. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय प्रभोद
कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्ण कन्स्टस्रक्ळन मा ठेकेदायाॊच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी भी कयत शोते. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ शे
एअयऩोर्ट ॲथाेॎरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी २०१२ वाराऩावून आरे आशे. एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ आल्मानॊतय नोकयबयतीवाठी त्माॊनी जाहशयात हदरी नव्शती ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे खये की,
एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा नोकयी देण्मावॊदबाटत भाझी भुराखत घेतरी नव्शती ल भरा कुठरेशी नेभणूक ऩत्र हदरे
नव्शते. शे म्शणणे खये की, प्रभोद कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्णा कन्स्टस्रक्ळन शे ठेकेदाय वलभानतऱाशळलाम इतय हठकाणीशी
भरा काभ कयण्मावाठी ऩाठलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये आशे की, भरा नोकयीत कामभ करुन घेलू अवे २०१२ वारानॊतय एअयऩोर्ट
अथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने कधीशी वाॊधगतरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र हदरेरे
नाशी. शे खये की, भी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय २००८ वाराऩावून काभ कयत शोते त्मालेऱी भाझे शजेयीचे येकॉिट श्री. ननचऱ ल
उऩयोक्त नभूद ठेकेदाय शेच ठेलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भाझी ऩगायाची यक्कभ भाझे फॉक खात्मात जभा केरी जात अवे.
भाझा दयभशा ऩगाय श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ देत शोते.
प्रश्न: तुम्शारा ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत ऩालत्मा तुम्शी दाखर कयण्माव तमाय आशात का ?
उत्तय: कुठल्माशी ऩालत्मा देण्मात मेत नव्शत्मा.
ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत कागदालय वाशी घेण्मात मेत अवे ल तो कागद श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ त्माॊच्माकिे ठेलून घेत अवत. शे खये की,
ठेकेदाय माॊनी भरा काभ देणे फॊद केरे शोते. शे खये की, भी दाखत केरेल्मा शजेयीऩत्रकालय वाभनेलारा क्र. १ वे ४ च्मा कोणाशी
अधधका-माच्मा वह्मा ल शळक्के नाशीत तवेच ते शजेयीऩत्रके ऩिताऱणी केल्माफाफत ळेये देखीर नाशीत.
शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱाच्मा ताब्मात ३६५ एकय जभीन अवल्माचे भी खोर्े वाॊगत आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की,
वाभनेलारा क्र. १ ते ४ च्मा अधधका-मावलरुध्द चुकीची लक्तव्मे करून भी खोर्े प्रनतसाऩत्र दाखर केरे आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी
की, वाभनेलारा क्र. ४ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी चुकीच्मा भागण्मा केल्मा आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी वलभानतऱालयीर काभ फॊद
झाल्मानॊतय ऩावऩोर्ट ऑपीवरा ल इतय हठकाणी काभ केरे ल इतय हठकाणी वध्मा काभ कयत आशे. शे खये की, वाभनेलारा क्र. १
ते ४ ने हदरेरे कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र भी अशबरेखालय दाखर केरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयण केंद्रळावनाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी काभ कयते ल त्माॊना केंद्रळावनाच्मा वलट कामदे ल ननमभ रागू आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी खोर्ी वाष देत
आशे.
शे खये आशे की भी दाखर केरेरा ऩाव प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चे अधधकायी श्री. वज्जन ननचऱ माॊनी हदरे आशे. शे खये आशे की
तो ऩाव वलभानतऱाच्मा ऩरयवयात तात्ऩुयता प्रलेळाकरयता देण्मात आरेरा आशे. शे खये आशे की त्मा ऩावची भुदत हद.
३०/०४/२०१० ऩमंत शोती. शे खये आशे की प्रथभ ऩषकाय क्र. १ ते ४ माॊनी भरा हद. ३१/१२/२०१५ ऩमंत वलभानतऱ ऩरयवयात
प्रलेळाकरयता तवाच ऩाव हदरा शोता. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा देण्मात आरेल्मा प्रलेळाच्मा ऩावचा ओऱखऩत्र अवा चुकीचा
अथट रालुन त्माचा ओऱखऩत्र म्शणुन लाऩय करून प्रस्तुतची खोर्ी केव दाखर केरी आशे.”
Thereafter on behalf of first party No. 5 Smt. Gangishetty, Advocate holding for Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3649
Advocate for first party No. 5 conducted cross-examination and some more vital admissions are brought on record.
Therefore, they are also useful to reproduce the same which are as under:-
“भी अशळक्षषत आशे. भी स्लच्छतेचे काभ कयत शोते. २०१२ वाराऩमंत भी एअयऩोर्ट ऑथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमा माॊचेकिे
काभ कयत शोते. शे खये की, वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे भॎनेजय शोते ल त्माॊच्मा शाताखारी भी काभ कयत शोते. शे खये की, वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे
प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचे भॎनेजय शोते. २०१२ वारानॊतय प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा वलभानतऱाळी वॊफॊध याहशरा नाशी ते भरा भाहशत
नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच वलभानतऱालय काभ कयत शोते. काभाच्मा हठकाणी ठेकेदाय मेत जात शोते ते
भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा ठेकेदायाकिून ऩगाय शभऱत अवे. शे खये की, २०१२ वारानॊतय भी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १
ते ४ माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोते. भरा ज्मालेऱी काभालरुन काढण्मात आरे त्मालेऱी भी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेकिे काभारा शोते
अवे भाझे म्शणणे आशे शे खये की, भाझी भागणी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेवलरुध्दच आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, प्रथभ ऩष क्र.
५ चा प्रस्तुत प्रकयणाळी कुठराशी वॊफॊध नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱालय काभ कयण्माव वुरुलात केल्माऩावून ते
काभ फॊद कयेऩमंत भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच काभ कयत शोते.
शे खये की, भी नभूद केरेरी एर.आम.वी ऩॉशरवी भाझे लैमक्क्तक नालाने शोती. शे खये की, वज्जन ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी कुठरी
कामदेळीय कायलाई केरी नाशी. स्लत्शून वाॊगते की, त्माॊना नोर्ीव हदरी शोती. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, श्री ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी
केरेरे आयोऩ ननयाधाय अवून प्रस्तुतच्मा प्रकयणाळी काशीशी एक वॊफॊध नाशी ल ते वलट आयोऩ खोर्े आशेत.”
Thereafter on behalf of second party filed evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22.
On the contrary first party No. 1 to 8 have not examined any independent witness to prove their
contentions, averments and objections raised in their Written Statement.
44.
My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex. O-5 including issue of employer-employee relationship between
the first party and second party and the entitlements of the reliefs claimed by the second party. According to second
party she was working from 2008-2009 with Air Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port
as Sweeper-cum-Labourer with first party. According to second party Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air
Port since its inception. It is specific stand of second party that she was appointed by and through M. A. D. C. for
performing sweeping, cleaning and other managerial work at Solapur Air Port since 2008-2009 on the wages of Rs.
4,000/- to 5,000/-. She was further used to work plantation and maintenance and watering to existence plants,
greenery was also done by second party. She also used to cleaning bathrooms, urinals on daily basis. Therefore,
work done by second party was perennial in nature and not ending in nature. According to second party the said
work is still in existence at Solapur Air Port. However, second party also admits that first party No. 5 was looking
after and has total control over the Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4. At the time of changing of control
and taking charge, the first party No. 3 and 4 have assured second party that she will be made permanent and will
be pay salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employees. It is further case of the second party that
she was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port regarding she will be paid Rs.
8,000/- to 9,000/- towards wages but amount was not received to second party. It is also contention of the second
party that she was given identity card being an employee of the Air Port Authority. She used to mark attendance
which was recorded by Air Port In-charge, Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 5
have continuously and consistently kept supervision and control over the second party. Alternatively it is the case of
the second party that as an eye wash camouflage, the services employed were shown as contract labour through
first party No. 6, 7 and 8 for using a weapon to give go-by to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights
of permanency and regularization of services. In short the second party claimed that she was and is employee of
first party No. 1 to 4.
45.
While deciding the core issue of employer-employee relationship between the second party and the first
party No. 1 to 4, the second party though claimed she was an employee of first party No. 1 to 4 and she have
submitted that the copies of documents at Ex. U-4, U-11 and U-20 respectively claiming that she was in the
employment since 2008 till 28/12/2015, that means more than approximately for 7 years of the service. It is
pertinent to note that the second party have not filed on record crucial documents mainly her appointment letter,
salary slip, documents relating to show her leave at relevant time and any contribution paid towards P. F. or E. S. I.
C. etc. etc. on record. It is oral contention of the second party that her services were supervised and managed by
first party No. 1 to 4 whereas she was examined herself below Ex. UW-1. In her cross-examination she admits that
she was appoint in the employment of Solapur Air Port at that time no notice was published in the newspaper
regarding the recruitment of the employees. Surprisingly she admits that one Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and
M/s. Shrikrishna Construction Contractor through whom she was appointed. She further admits that the Solapur
Air Port is transferred to Air Port Authority of India since 2012. The said Air Port of India never published any
time any advertisement in newspaper regarding recruitment of the employees.
Further she admits that she was not called for interview by the Air Port Authority of India nor she was
3650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
issued appointment letter. Surprisingly, she admits that Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and M/s. Shrikrishna
Constriction Contractor who are first party No. 6 to 8 used to send her another work during her employment. She
admits that after 2012 the officers of Air Port Authority of India never assured her regarding the permanency in
the employment. Further Air Port of India have not issued any identity card. All these vital admissions are self
explanatory to decide relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4. Further she admits that she was
given the entry pass at Air Port Solapur. The period of entry pass was expired on 30/04/2010 and first party No. 1
to 4 have issued same entry pass to second party for the period ending on 31/12/2015.
46.
Admittedly, no appointment orders are issued, no payment slips are issued to the second party nor
termination order issued to the second party. In her cross-examination conduced by and on behalf of first party No.
5 she surprisingly admits that her claim is against only first party No. 1 to 4. She denied that since her employment
till her termination she worked through contractor. The Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 2A (2) of
the I. D. Act conducted conciliation proceedings and after its failure issued certificate to second party to approach
to appropriate forum. The documents which are placed on record mainly the demand notice dated 16/07/2016
certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune and copy of entry pass valid till 30/04/2010
and entry pass issued by Solapur Air Port valid till 31/12/2015 and one page of attendance register having no
signature, seal or name of the employer.
47.
It is true that the second party filed application at Ex. U-8 for direction to produce some copies of
documents at Ex. U-8 and U-9. Both the applications are partly allowed by my Ld. Predecessor by orders dated
13/03/2019 and 02/03/2023. But first party failed to produce those documents. Surprisingly, the second party filed
application at Ex. U-11 for permission to lead secondary evidence before the Court. The said application was
allowed and second party is permitted to lead secondary evidence. Therefore, on behalf of second party filed list of
documents at Ex. U-11 and at Ex. U-14 copy of attendance register for the period 09/03/2014 to 18/06/2014 does
not bear name of employer or signature of any concerned supervisor/manager or authorized officer. At Ex. U-15
the second party himself to file document showing that handing over/taking over of Solapur Air Port of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India in pursuance to G. R. Dated 04/12/2012 the first party
was transferred to Air Port Authority of India in the year 2012.
Most surprising the document which is filed
by the second party by way secondary evidence at Ex. U-16, it is the photocopy of attendance register showing
muster was kept by Union Steel First Party No. 6 for the period August-2008 to February-2015 at Ex. U-17 is
another attendance register for the period 02/02/2015 to 31/12/2015 which does not bear name of employer,
signature of any manager or authorized officer nor filed on record any document vouchers or bank statement
showing that the second party was paid directly by first party No. 1 to 4 whereas her claim of reinstatement of
continuity of service and back wages against first party No. 1 to 4. The documents which are placed on record are
most clearly showing that the second party was in the employment of Union Steel Contractor first party No. 6 since
2008. Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against first party No. 1 to 5. Two corroborate documents her
cross-examination below Ex. UW-1 is more than sufficient to establish the relationship between the second party
and first party No. 1 to 4 those documents loudly speaking that the second party was in the employment through
contractor that is first party No. 6 to 8.
48.
It should not be ignored that the first party No. 2 to 4 filed the copy of annual maintenance contract (Civil)
2015-2016 for operational area at Solapur Air Port Page No. 1 to 154 at Ex. C-17. The contract agreement dated
20/10/2015 signed between the Air Port Authority of India and M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions for supplying
manpower to first party No. 1 to 4. Considering all these documents mainly in the light of oral admissions given by
the second party in her cross-examination shows that she was never directly appointed by first party No. 1 to 4 nor
first party No. 5 at any point of time. Whereas documents herself placed on record showing that she was employed
through contractor namely Union Steel since 2008. Therefore, she was employee of contractor and not of first
party No. 1 to 4 as principal employer. These documents shows that there is no relationship between the second
party and first party No. 1 to 5 at any point of time.
49.
It is needless to mention here that in view of the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor and evidence led by
the second party it is admitted position that the second party was well aware that she was appointed through
contractor. However, she was contended that the said contract was sham and bogus and camouflage. As per
Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, there was no declaration regarding sham
and bogus contract unless and until it is declared by the appropriate authority that the said contract was sham and
bogus, the second party cannot claim any benefits as mentioned in her prayer clause of Statement of Claim against
first party No. 1 to 5. The entire burden was cast upon second party to establish there is employer-employee
relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4 and 5. However, though the burden cast upon second
party but she miserably failed to file on record cogent documentary evidence such as her appointment order, wages
paid by the first party No. 1 to 4 & 5 or she was issued any notice in her tenure of employment or any such
document which establishes the relationship between the first party No. 1 to 5 but the most relevant document
material are missing from the record.
50.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3651
Nilgiri (cited supra) where it is observed that unless it is proved by an appointment letter, salary etc. etc., it cannot
be said that there is any employer-employee relationship, moreover, unless there is reference to whether the
contract between the first party No. 1 and others regarding contract is sham and bogus, Tribunal cannot be
decided without referring such type of dispute to the Tribunal. On the contrary from the record first party No. 6 to
8 since beginning are the contractors.
51.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of International Air Port Authority of India Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers’ Union 2009 (123) FLR. has laid down that the Tribunal has to comply tests like
who pays the salary, who has power to remove/dismiss from service, or to initiate disciplinary action. In short who
has direct control and supervision over employees to decide whether the contract is nominal or only on paper. It is
further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unless there is invocation under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Tribunal cannot direct the principal employer to absorb or regularize services of the
contract labour. It is also held that the supervision and control of principal employer will not be only test to hold
that they are direct employees of the principal employer.
52.
On behalf of first party No. 5 so many observations are relied to show that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the first party and first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. In all the observations in sum and
substance are similar as discussed above. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is claim of the second party that she
was terminated on 28/12/2015 by the first party No. 1 to 4. In fact it is brought on record that she was contract
labour. Her termination appears to be non renewal of contract with first party No. 1 to 5. Therefore, termination
does not constituted retrenchment also. Therefore, she is not entitled to get relief of reinstatement with continuity
of service and to regularize in the employment since 2009 against first party No. 1 to 5. In absence of any
employer-employee relationship though the second party examined herself but failed to establish that there is
relationship of employer-employee between first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. Therefore, claim of
reinstatement and back wages against first party no. 1 to 5 required to be answered in negative.
As second party failed to prove the relationship between herself and first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, issue
is required to be answered in the negative.
53.
The another issue is in respect of entitlement of relief of second party. It is the case of the first party No. 1
to 4 since beginning that the first party No. 6 to 8 appointed the second party paid the salary, supervise and
manage her services, she was allotted work in different places other than first party. It is also contention that the
first party No. 6 to 8 she received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 and the first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal
employer of the second party. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demand of second
party and they are duty bound to comply all the statutory provisions of Labour Laws, Standing Orders, Circulars
related with second party’s employment.
54.
During the course of argument Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 fairly submitted that
during crucial period of termination of second party was not paid salary for the month of November and
December-2015. The contract with first party No. 1 to 4 came to an end on 31/12/2015 due to non renewal of
contract they are unable to provide employment to second party. However, they are ready to pay unpaid wages of
two months. It is pertinent to note here that though the second party in her statement of claim contended that work
which she was performed still in existence at first party No. 1 to 4. However, to show this fact neither filed any
document nor examined any independent witness to establish that the work is available. Mere allegations in the
Statement of Claim are not sufficient to hold that the work is available.
55.
At the same time it should not be ignored that admittedly since 2008 till 20/12/2015 she was working as
sweeping, cleaning and due to non renewal of contract, she was terminated without issuing notice by first party No.
6 to 8. At the most, she is entitled to get two months salary and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments that if reinstatement is not possible then concerned employee should be given lump-sum compensation
considering her 8 years service through contractor, notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other legal dues as
per applicable Law to the second party by first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- to second party, it will be met the ends of justice and no prejudice will be caused either to first party No.
6 to 8 or to the second party.
56.
Therefore, in this angle of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case I come to conclusion that
second party is entitled to get lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final of her claim. Therefore,
issue regarding entitlement should required to be answered in partly in affirmative and I answer the same in partly
in affirmative. I find much substance in the statement made on behalf first party No. 1 to 4 and first party No. 5,
the observations relied by the first parties are helpful to decide the issue of contract labour by this Tribunal.
Though on behalf of second party some observations are relied but they are not helpful to the facts and
circumstances of the present case in hand. With due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court I mentioned here that
the observations relied by the second party are not helpful to grant relief claimed by her.
57.
Therefore, reference needs to be answered partly in affirmative against the first party No. 6 to 8 only. With
3652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
this, I proceed to pass following award:-
AWARD
1)
Reference (IT) No. 04/2017 is answered partly in affirmative against first party No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
First Party No. 6 to 8 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to second party within period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of award.
3)
No order as to costs.
4)
Copies of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.
5)
Proceedings is closed.
Date: 06-12-2025
M. R. KUMBHAR, Presiding Officer
amj/-
Assistant Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Solapur.
Argued on: 05/12/2025
Dictated on: 05 & 06/12/2025
Transcribed on: 08, 09 & 10/12/2025
Checked & Signed on: 11/12/2025
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 709.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार सेंरल एजवएिन जमजनस्ट्री; एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मिाराष्ट्र एयरृोटव डेवलृमेंट अ ॉररटी; मेससव
श्रीकृ्ि कंस्ट्रक्िंस; मेससव यूजनयन स्ट्टील; श्री प्रमोि टी. कुलाल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती नागुबाई
ृंजडत उमरानी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिम औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 05/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
17.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-43]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 709.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 05/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Central Aviation
Ministry; Airport Authority of India; Maharashtra Airport Development Authority; M/s. Shrikrishna
Constructions; M/s. Union Steel; Mr. Pramod T. Kulal and Smt. Nagubai Pandit Umrani which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.04.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-43]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SOLAPUR
Presided Over by M. R. Kumbhar, Presiding Officer
Reference (IT) No. 05/2017
Exhibit No.:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3653
Dispute between:-
1)
Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
R/o. Govt. of India, New Delhi, Delhi
2)
Manager, Airport Authority of India,
R/o. A. N. Union Office, Port Cabin, New Airport
Colony, Parshiwada, Sahara-Andheri Road,
Mumbai – 400 009.
3)
Airport Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
4)
Office Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
5)
Maharashtra Airport Development Authority,
R/o. World Trade Centre, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai.
6)
M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions,
R/o. Block No. A/505, Yashraj, Bhekrao Nagar,
S. 177, Phursungi, Pune – 412 308.
7)
M/s. Union Steel,
R/o. B-Wing, 11 Floor, Flat No. 206,
Varsha Adarsha Co-op. Housing Society,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) Mumbai – 400 024.
8)
Mr. Pramod T. Kulal,
R/o. 4-A, Aaji Sainik Nagar, Vijapur Road,
Solapur.
… First Parties
And:-
Smt. Nagubai Pandit Umrani
Age: 44 Years; Occupation : Nil;
R/o. Rahul Nagar, Hotigi Road,
Solapur
… Second Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances:-
Advocate for First Parties No.1 To 4 :- Mr. S. S. Chiwari & S.S. Bendre
Advocate for First Party No. 5
:- Mr. V. B. Marathe
Advocate for First Party No. 6
:- Mr. G. H. Kulkarni
Advocate for First Party No. 7
:- Mr. B. T. Jadhav
Advocate for First Party No. 8
:- Mr. L. A. Gawali
Advocate for Second Party
:- Mr. V. R. Deshpande
AWARD
(Delivered on:- 06/12/2025)
1.
As per certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune to second Party Smt. Nagubai
Pandit Umrani as per Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the I. D. Act‘ for
brevity). After completion of mandatory 45 days of filing his dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore,
approached this Tribunal and directly filed her Statement of Claim under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act
for adjudication on 07/05/2017 in respect of dispute relating to reinstatement with full back wages and continue
service with status and benefits of permanency or regularization at Solapur Air Port.
3654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The Second Party has filed her Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and contended that she was working with Air
Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port from the year 2008-09 as Sweeper-cum-Labour with
First Party. The Secretary Central Aviation Ministry Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has
managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air Port Authority since its inception. The Second Party further
contended that initially she was appointed by and through Maharashtra Air Port Development Corporation (In short M
A D C) for performing sweeping, cleaning and other manual work at Solapur Air Port. She was being paid Rs. 4,000/-
to 5,000/- by M A D C. The area of Solapur Air Port is 365 Acre. Hence, the work of cleaning and sweeping was of
big nature and is required to be done on day to day basis. Beside the office control tower, other office rooms, godown,
entrance road, internal roads were also required to be clean and maintain properly and for that purpose services of
second party were required on day to day basis.
3.
She further contended that the work of plantation and maintenance of trees, watering to existing plants and
greenery was also done by the second party on daily basis. She used to clean bath-rooms, urinals, etc. etc. on daily
basis. Above work was performing as per direction and instruction of first party No. 3 and 4. According to second
party all above work is of perennial in nature and is of non ending in nature. All the works as stated above are still in
existence and will continue till existence of Air Port at Solapur.
4.
The second party further contended that M A D C i. e. First Party No. 5 was looking after and has total
control over the Solapur Air Port after 2012. The Solapur Air Port was under the control of Air Port In-charge and
office In-charge of Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4 at the time of change of control and at the time of
taking charge, First Party No. 3 and 4, they assured the second party that she will be made permanent and will be
giving pay, Salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employee. Therefore, she kept bonafide belief
towards assurance and continued her above mentioned work at Solapur Air Port under their control. She further
adhere that in the year 2014 second party was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air
Port Solapur that she will be paid Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month wages. However, she did not receive such amount
of wages and she was never given benefit of permanency though she was working continuously from the year 2008-
09. The wages paid to second party were far less than the statutory rate of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the first party
has committed breach of the statutory provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
Thereafter she was given Identity Card being the employee of the Air Port Authority. She specifically
contended that the attendance was to be marked and recorded by the Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge Solapur
Air Port. Both were having supervisory and managerial control over the second party. As an eye wash and camouflage
services the employees were shown as contract labourer through first parties No. 6, 7 and 8. The said trick was used
as weapon to give go-by or by-pass to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights of the second party.
Than even after the changes the so called labour contractors on paper. The second party was continued on her work as
per earlier system method and was doing some work as before.
5.
According to second party the work of daily nature/permanent nature cannot be allotted to labour contractor
and only work of temporary and continue nature can be allotted to labour contractor. The daily supervision and
control was of first parties No. 3 and 4. The paper work shown of first party to engage second party through labour
contractor was not legal, proper and bonafide. Rather the said paper work was done only with intention to deny
legitimate rights including permanency regularization of second party.
6.
The second party further contended that one Mr. Sajjan Nichal who was working as Manager has instructed
the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C. policy otherwise threatened to terminate their services. So the
second party along with other co-workers took the L. I. C. policy and also becoming members of Trade Unions.
Further in the month of December-2015 the second party and other co-workers were purposely not paid monthly
wages and during that period second party and other co-workers were forced to sign below agreement/affidavit/
document/contract prepared by them, which was not read over by the second party in their language known to them.
The second party and other co-workers were put under tremendous pressure and was subjected to harassing for
signing said agreement but second party remain firm in signing the said arbitrary, ex-party and illegal agreement.
Therefore, she was not paid wages of November and December-2015. Therefore, second party and other co-workers
were not allowed to sign the muster-roll from December-2015 onward. They refused to provide employment to
second party.
7.
According to the second party she was worked since 2008 to December-2015 with Solapur Air Port without
any break. The work performing by her is of perennial in nature and work is still in existence. The first party refused
to give employment only to deprive legitimate right of permanency and regularization.
8.
The second party lastly contended that she has completed more than 240 days service in each and every year
with Solapur Air Port who is the principal employer of the second party. Also first party No. 1-4 are principal
employer of the second party. However, the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provision and
procedure of Law as well as due process of Law. Even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1
to 4 by violating provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act as well as Section 4(c) of Standing Orders and relevant
circulars, regulations etc. etc. At the time of termination the first party has not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay,
nor paid compensation before terminating service. The termination of second party is by way of unfair labour
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3655
practices and sole intention is to deprive all benefits of permanency and regularization by violating principles of
natural justice, equity and fair play. The first party have adopted the forbidden policy of hire and fire. Therefore, the
second party issued legal notice dated 07/01/2016 through their advocate. However, the first party have given false
and contrary as well as evasive reply to it. Hence, the second party has filed Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2016 in
Industrial Court, Solapur. However, the said Court returned the complaint to second party with liberty to approach
appropriate authority/or court. Hence, the second party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter
submitted her case for conciliation before Conciliation Officer and Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central),
Pune.
The Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune has issued certificate dated
09/12/2016 as provided under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the second party approached this Court and filed
her statement of claim in detail and prayed that the first party be directed to reinstate the second party at Solapur Air
Port from 28/12/2015 with full back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits and to grant status
and benefit of permanency regularization at Solapur Air Port from the date of completion of 240 days service at first
instance from 2009 with difference in wages and allowances along with 18% interest thereon and for unpaid salary of
month of November, December-2015 with 18% interest thereon till its actual realization.
9.
After submitting the statement of claim second party my Ld. Predecessor issued notice to all the first parties
No. 1 to 8. In response to that Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate with Shri. S. S. Bendre, Ld. Advocate appeared
through First Parties No. 1 to 4 and filed detailed Written Statement at Ex. C-5 on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V.
B. Marthe, Ld. Advocate put his appearance and filed Say and Written Statement at Ex. CA-4. Shri. G. H. Kulkarni,
Ld. Advocate on behalf of first party No. 6, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. L. A.
Gawali, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 8 though put their appearance but failed to file their Written Statement.
Therefore, my Ld. Predecessor by an order dated 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against first party No.
6 to 8.
10.
The first party No. 1 to 4 by filing their Written Statement at Ex. C-5 denied all the contentions, averments
and statements made in the statement of claim. It is specific case of the first party No. 1 to 4 that second party was
worked with Solapur Air Port are not true and correct. According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was
appointed by contractors that is first party No. 6 to 8. That the contents in respect of control, supervision by Solapur
Air Port since inception are not true and correct. Accordingly, the first party No. 3 was having supervisory control
over the Solapur Air since December-2012. The appointment of second party are denied specifically. The first party
No. 1 to 4 never used to give direction or any instruction for work. However, it is admitted that in respect of control
over the Solapur Air Port after 2012 is with Air Port Authority of India. That the first party No. 1 to 4 never assured
about permanency and regularization or other consequential benefits to the second party because second party was
never under the control of first party No. 1 to 4. The first party No. 1 to 4 never promised to pay an amount of Rs. 8-9
thousands per month towards wages. Then first party No. 1 to 4 never paid any wages to second party. Therefore,
committing any breach of minimum wages does not arise. First party No. 1 to 4 have never issued any identity card to
the second party being an employee of Air Port Authority of India and or of Air Port In-charge never marked
attendance nor kept supervision over the second party.
11.
According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was appointed by various contractors and working with
various contractors. The second party was working under direct control of various contractors that is first party No. 6
to 8 such as Union Steels, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Constructions. The first party No. 1 to 4 have never maintained
muster-roll for attendance and for work performance of second party neither assured at any time regarding
permanency as alleged in Statement of Claim. Moreover, as per contention of Statement of Claim first party No. 1 to 4
are not concerned with present dispute raised by the second party which is vague in nature.
12.
The entire contentions of statement of claim was denied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and contended that they
have not done any act such as termination, retrenchment or any act with intend to deprive legitimate benefit of
permanency or regularization of second party as the first party No. 1 to 4 never appointed the second party. Therefore,
question of illegal termination and violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act at all not arise as alleged against him.
13.
The first party No. 1 to 4 lastly contended that Solapur Air Port was under the control and supervision of M.
A. D. C. till December 2012. Thereafter Air Port is under the control of Air Port Authority of India that is first party
No. 1 to 4 that the first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concern about the appointment made by M. A. D. C. during
their tenure. The first party No. 1 to 4 never appoints any labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port, Air
Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to registered contractor that is first party No. 6 and 8
namely M/s. Shrikishna Construction, Solapur and thereafter M/s. Pramod T. Kulal, Solapur. The Air Port Authority
of India has continued work on contract awarded by M. A. D. C. for operational reasons till appointment of new
contractor. It is specific contention of first party No. 1 to 4 that the second party is appointed by the contractor and
therefore, the second party is removed by the said contractor. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages,
compensation, benefits provided as per Labour Laws and Standing Orders, implement the circulars etc. etc. as the
second party was under the control as well as supervision of first party No. 6 to 8.
3656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Therefore, their services are controlled and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. As the second party has
received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal employer of second party.
Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demands of second party and duty bound to comply all
the statutory provisions of the Labour Laws, standing Orders, Circulars relating with second party and prayed that the
claim against first party No. 1 to 4 may kindly be dismissed.
14.
The first party No. 5 in their Written Statement filed below Ex. CA-4 denied all the contents, averments and
allegations made against first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim are false, baseless. It is further denied
that the second party was working with first party No. 5 as Sweeper-cum-Labourer. Further denied that the second
party was appointed by first party No. 5 at Mumbai for performing work of sweeping and cleaning and was paying
wages of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month.
15.
The first party No. 5 also denied that the first party No. 5 was required to maintain and clean the property at
Solapur. Further denied that the first party No. 5 was to maintain work of plantation and maintenance and of watering
the existing plants to clean the bath-rooms, urinals etc. Further denied that the work is of perennial in nature and not
ending. The contentions of statement of claim are false and baseless. It is fact that the first party No. 5 was looking
after Solapur Air Port till December-2012 as regards first party No. 3 and 4. This party is not concerned with the
contents raised in Statement of Claim against them due to want of knowledge.
16.
The first party No. 5 lastly contended that they have never engaged or appointed the second party at any time
till its tenure. In fact this party used to give work of purely temporarily in nature. Therefore, contractor not only that
the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was got done on contractual basis. Therefore,
there is no employer-employee relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party at any point of time till
December-2012. There is no compliance against the first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim at para No.
20 clearly shows that she is claiming reinstatement with full back wages from 28/12/2015. Moreover, the second party
was admitted that after December-2012, Solapur Air Port was handed over as per Government Resolution of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India. Therefore, first party No. 5 was unnecessarily made party
in this reference. The contents regarding continuous work from 2008-09 till 2010 as this first party never appointed
the second party one Mr. Sajjan Nichal had never instructed the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C.
Policy.
In fact the second party and co-worker of contractor M/s. Union Steel and the said contractor had taken
policy of its workers which is knowing to do with Mr. Sajjan Nichal. Therefore this first party No. 5 is not liable
either to reinstate or to give back wages or any such prayers made against them. Therefore, reference against first
party No. 5 requires to be rejected and prayed to dismiss the same.
17.
The first party No. 6, 7 and 8 though appeared through Ld. Advocates, but failed to file their Written
Statement if any on record. The Ld. Advocates have participated in respective dates of proceedings. My Ld.
Predecessor below Ex. U-1 on 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against these first parties.
18.
From the rival contentions and submissions made in the Statement of Claim as well as Written Statement of
first party No. 1 to 5 issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor below Ex. O-7 on 06/08/2019 and my findings to
them are as under:-
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1)
Whether the Second Party is entitled for the reliefs claimed in
the statement of claim?
… Partly in Affirmative
against First Party
No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
Whether the Second Party proves that there exist an employer-
employee relationship between Second Party and First Party?
… In the negative in
respect of First Party
No. 1 to 5 And
In the affirmative in
respect of First Party
No. 6 to 8
3)
What Award?
… As per final Award.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3657
REASONS
19.
Second Party in respect of their contention raised in Statement of Claim have filed some copies of documents
with List Ex. U-4 comprising of demand notice dated 16/07/2016 given by second party and certificate dated
09/12/2016 issued by Conciliation Officer, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune. Second party also filed
additional documents along with list Ex. U-11 comprising of copy of attendance register regarding second
party(Exh.U-14), charge report of handing over/taking over charge form Solapur Airport Government of Maharashtra
to Airports Authority of India (Exh. U-15), copy of muster roll maintained by Union Steel (Exh. U-16), copy of
attendance register regarding second party (Exh. U-17) and copy of legal notice issued by second party through Adv.
Kashid (Exh. U-18) and therefore, second party also filed some documents along with list Ex. U-20 comprising of
original entry permit given to second party by Incharge Solapur Air Port and photocopy of attendance register
showing attendance of second party with Solapur Air Port Incharge for the month of September-2008 (Exh. U-21). On
the contrary the first party No. 2 to 4 have also filed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-17 comprising of
copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (civil) 2015-16 for operational Area at Soalpur Airport and on behalf of first
party No. 5 have placed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-13 comprising of copy of letter dated 12/07/2013,
copy of letter dated 07/10/2013, copy of letter dated 31/12/2013, copy of letter dated 30/01/2013, copy of letter dated
26/05/2013, copy of letter dated 08/04/2013, copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2013, statement of
payment and copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2014. The first party No. 6 to 8 neither filed Written
Statement nor produced any document on record.
20.
The second party have filed application at Ex. U-8 for production of documents which was partly allowed by
my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13/08/2019 and directed to produce the documents called for. Again second
party filed another application for production of documents at Ex. U-9 which was partly allowed vide order dated
02/03/2023. Thereafter second party have again filed application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
below Ex. U-10, U-12. Both applications were allowed vide Order dated 09/02/2024.
21.
The second party to prove her claim made in the Statement of Claim have examined herself at Ex. UW-1 by
filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. She was duly cross-examined by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 5
respectively but no cross order passed against the first party No. 6 to 8. Thereafter on behalf of second party filed
evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22. On the contrary the first party No. 1 to 4, 5 and 6 to 8 have not led any oral
evidence before this tribunal.
22.
Conciliation officer as per direction of this tribunal produced copies of documents with list Ex. C-20 that is
conciliation proceedings given by Conciliation officer And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune(containing
102 pages) on 23/8/2024.
Heard Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate for second party and Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with
Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate for first party No. 5, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. G. H.
Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 and on behalf of first party No. 8 Shri. L. A. Gawali chose remained
absent after filing their vakalatnamas. In addition to this Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate filed Written Synopsis
of argument at Ex. U-24 with list of case-laws. On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Bendre,
Ld. Advocate also placed on record Written Synopsis of argument at Ex. C-23 with list of citations. On the contrary
on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate filed notes of
argument at Ex. CA-7 with list of citations. Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 submitted and
admitted that the second party was in the employment of first party No. 6 to 8 they are contractors. Their contract was
terminated at the end of December-2015. Due to non renewal of contract the services of second party was terminated
and first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay two months unpaid salary only and prayed to pass appropriate order.
23.
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate Shri. V. R. Deshpande for second party submitted in detail
as per the contentions of statement of claim. With the help of oral as well as documentary evidence, he further
submitted that the second party was not paid wages of November and December-2015 because the second party and
other co-workers have refused to sign agreement. Therefore, they were not allowed to sign muster roll since
December-2015 onward and also refused to provide employment since then. He further submitted that the second
party and other co-workers have worked from 2008 with Solapur Air Port till end of December-2015 without any
break. He further submitted that the work performed by the second party is of perennial in nature and the said work is
still in existence. However, for no reason from December-2015 the first party have refused to give employment to
second party with intention to deprive second party from their legitimate benefits of permanency.
24.
He further strongly submitted that the second party has completed more than 240 days of service in each and
every year with Solapur Air Port Authority that is first party No. 2 to 4. Solapur Air Port who is the principal
employer of the second party. So also first party No. 1 to 4 are principal employer of the second party. He then
submitted that the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provisions of Law and procedure of
Law and deprived the benefit of permanency even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1 to
4. Solapur Air Port authority have failed to observe the provision of Section 25-F and provisions of Section 4(c) of the
Standing Orders relevant circulars as well as Resolutions passed from time to time. He put his great emphasis on the
issue of termination and submitted that the first party have not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay, compensation
3658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
before terminating services of the second party. Termination of second party is hastily, abruptly and by engaging into
unfair labour practices with sole intention to deprive from benefit of permanency. Therefore, termination is illegal and
not bonafide. The first party also violated principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. They have adopted
forbidden policy of hire and fire.
25.
Then he invited my attention towards legal notice dated 07/01/2016 issued through their advocate to which
second party received false and contrary and evasive reply then he submitted that the second party and other co-
workers have filed complaint of unfair labour practices bearing ULP No. 35/2016 before this Court. However, the
Industrial Court, Solapur returned the said complaint with liberty to approach appropriate forum. Therefore, second
party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter submitted case for conciliation with Regional
Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune and after filing application to implement first party No. 6 to 8 they were
made parties to the proceedings. He further submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune had
issued certificate dated 09/12/2016 as per Section 2A of the I. D. Act to file this reference before this Tribunal.
Therefore, reference made by the second party is maintainable.
26.
Then he invited my attention towards the order below Ex. U-8 and U-9 and submitted that though as per
direction of this Tribunal regarding muster-roll, payment register, labour contract agreements, licence etc. etc., but
first party failed to produce the same. Then he invited my attention towards oral evidence of the second party at Ex.
UW-1 and put his great emphasis on the list of document at Ex. U-11 and submitted that the second party is workman
and workers does not have any custody of original documents. Therefore, second party has filed documents and call
for the said documents from the custody of first party but in spite of directions to produce by this Tribunal first party
have not produced documents. Then he invited my attention towards order below Ex. U-12 and submitted as per the
permission of this Tribunal. The second party produced some copies of documents along with list Ex. U-12 which is
at Ex. U-14 to U-18 i. e. copies of muster rolls, documents of handling over the Air Port Management, legal notice
etc.. Those are required to be read in evidence. Then filed some more copies of documents with list Ex. U-20 and U-
21 respectively. He then submitted that the second party as proved his case that the termination of service from
28/12/2015 is illegal and act of unfair labour practices. Therefore, second party is entitled for the permanency along
with consequential benefits and from the month of January 2009. According to Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate
oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of second party have gone unchallenged, unrebutted or uncontroverted.
Therefore, reference of second party is required to be allowed and prayed to allow the same.
27.
He lastly submitted that the first party has not lead its own oral/documentary evidence to prove their defense,
objection and contentions in Written Statement. First parties have neither produced any document in their custody
even after directions from this Tribunal nor producing their own evidence. So also first party No. 6 to 8 have also not
lead their own evidence nor entered into witness box. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the first
party. He further submitted that as per settled Law, pleadings and written statement is not evidence. The first party
have taken adjournments but failed to file their own evidence. Therefore, defense cannot be liable to be considered for
want of their evidence and prayed to allow reference with all prayers made therein.
28.
He relied upon the following citations:-
i) Iswar Bhai C Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 1341)
ii) Reportable judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 20/12/2024
and relied upon observations at para No. 27 and 28 which reads as -
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary
litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,
thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the
High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith. However, the
appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for
but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-
retiral benefits.
iii)
Then he relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court between – The Mysore Electrical
Industries Ltd. Vs. Engineering And General Workers Union decided on 09/10/2023 in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2023
(L-RES).
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3659
iv) Then he relied upon observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 (Shripal &
Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad) and relied upon observations in para No. 15 which reads as under:-
15.
It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer‘s
failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing
municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the
absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique
of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of
India 3 in the following paragraphs:
―22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits,
job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining
labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear
an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy
but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to
address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often labeled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such mis-classification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of
constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for
skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary
employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as
pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.‖
v)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajranagar
Coal Mines Workers’ Union in Civil Appeal No. 4092-4093/2024 relied upon observations at para No. 22 and 23
which reads as under:-
―22. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to a
conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated previously, we
do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However, as the case was argued
at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals. What we have referred to here in-
above are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court. In view of the concurrent findings
of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of work, continuous working of the workmen, we
are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and
therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages‖.
vi)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer
I/R to Mangmat. of FCI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2417 – 2418 of 2014 and relied upon observations at para No. 34.
3660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
―34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when
there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give
direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-hoc/temporary
worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would
be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize such a person, only on the
basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may amount to backdoor entry into the
service which is an anathema to Art. 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when
the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment
Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself
under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court
are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-
regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases
and would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the
equality by upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision‖.
vii) He lastly relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court between the Air India Statutory corporation
Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. decided on 06/12/1996, Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-34 of 1996 and prayed
to allow the reference of section party with all prayers made therein.
29.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate submitted in detail as per
the written statement filed on record. He further submitted that the second party prepared the present reference against
stoppage of their work by the contractor and claiming the benefit of permanency and regularization at Solapur Air
Port from the completion of their 240 days of their service at first instance i. e. December 2009 and also claimed
difference of that first wages along with 18% p. a. interest therein. He invited my attention towards the Written
Statement filed on record and contention therein and submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 mainly contended that
the reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of the back door entry who come in the employment by using back
door entry must go through back door. He then submitted that Solapur Air Port Authority was under the control and
supervision of M. A. D. C. first party No. 5 till December-2012 and thereafter under control of Air Port Authority of
India that is first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concerned about appointment
made by M. A. D. C. during their tenure. He put his great emphasis on the document filed by the second party and
submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 never appoint any Labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port then
he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to the registered contractor
that is first party No. 6 to 8. The second party was appointed by the contractor and therefore, second party is removed
by the said contractor. Therefore, the first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages, compensation, benefits as per the
provisions of Labour Laws.
30.
Then he submitted that the second party was under the control of the first party No. 6 to 8 contractor at
relevant time. Therefore, second party was working for the contractor. Moreover, work of second party was controlled
and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. All these facts were admitted by the second party in their cross-
examination.
31.
He lastly submitted that the second party was never appointed by the first party No. 1 to 4 in the year 2009
whereas they were appointed by contractor namely Union Steel, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Construction i. e. first
party No. 6 to 8 for day to day work of cleaning and maintenance work at Solapur Air Port. The said fact is admitted
by the second party in their cross-examination. Therefore, the employer for second party is of first party No. 6 to 8.
The second party was never controlled nor paid by the M. A. D. C. The demand vouchers were prepared and
maintained by the M. A. D. C. Their work at Solapur Air Port was stopped by the first party No. 6 to 8 that is
contractor. The attendance register produced on record, it does not bear signature and office seal of Air Port Authority
of India nor appeared seal of Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India never
published any advertisement for appointment or never initiated procedure for recruitment of second party nor issued
any identity card as claimed by the second party. Therefore, the present reference is not tenable and maintainable as
per Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. He invited my attention towards definition of retrenchment and
submitted that the termination of workman service due to non renewal of fixed term of contract or the termination of
such contract as per its term does not constitute retrenchment. He further submitted that the service contract of first
party No. 6 to 8 was completed, its tenure and same was not continued and hence, the work allotted through
contractor to second party come to an end. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between first party
No. 1 to 4 and second party nor there is no any appointment nor made any payment nor made any supervision or
control. Therefore, question of violation of Section 25-F and illegal termination does not arise and also question of
payment of compensation does not arise and prayed to reject reference of second party.
32.
He further adhere that the second party can approach directly to the M. A. D. C. i. e. first party No. 5 as
initial period of 240 days service was completed prior to December 2012 at Solapur Air Port. Therefore, the present
reference at all not tenable and maintainable against first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the same.
33.
He relied upon various observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court in which Ex.
C-23 page (No. 7 A) State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293 wherein it is held that, ―Appointment –
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3661
Nature of appointment: There is estoppel against challenging nature of appointment once having duly accepted the
same: Having accepted contractual appointment, respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their
appointment.
B]
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 01 wherein in para No. 34 and 36 it is held that -
34. …………..
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with
the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the
same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes
to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis,
the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he
would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless
the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment'
in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould
the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to
continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden
of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
36.
While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent,
courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual
in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be
true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some
employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would
not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who
has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will
be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a
contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power,
that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or
temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be
getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After
all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept
a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context
that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned
knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The
claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be
considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making
regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been
working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the
nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the
procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of
constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
C]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal and others (2011) SCC 429 wherein in para No. 8 of the said judgment it
is held that -
3662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in
pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had
been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16
should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an
employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of
compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process,
can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be `litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years,
let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not
working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing
that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the
cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or
contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for
framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
part time temporary employees.
(v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
D]
State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247
E]
Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 300
F]
K. K. Suresh V. Food Corpn. Of India (2018) 17 SCC
641
G]
Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 1417
H]
Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Anr. AIR 2014 SC 1848
I]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001 SC
3527
J]
Jt. Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors. [2025 (185) FLR
864 SC] And prayed that observations relied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and the disputed question therein is
similar to that of the dispute raised by the second party in present case in hand. Therefore, observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court are helpful to the case of the first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the claim of second
party against First Party No. 1 to 4.
34.
On the contrary Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 5 vehemently submitted that the
present reference is referred by the Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune by its certificate dated
09/12/2016 which is placed on record for determination of dispute between parties. The second party raised
demand on 01/07/2016 for their reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages from
completion of 240 days in service. He read over certificate issued by Regional Commissioner (Central) Pune and
submitted that the second party raised dispute under Section 2A of the I. D. Act in regarding termination from
service by the Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted certificate was issued as mandatory of completion of
45 days of filing/raising dispute by second party before Conciliation Officer as provided under the I. D. Act then he
read over Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and Written Statement filed on record at Ex. CA-4.
35.
He put his great emphasis on the issue that there was no employer-employee relationship between first
party No. 5 and second party. He further submitted that first party No. 5 used to give work purely temporary in
nature through contractor not only that the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was
got done on contract basis. In the present reference contractors are made parties as first party No. 6 to 8. Therefore,
it is clear that the second party is admitting that she was appointing by and through contractor. Her claim if any is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3663
against first party No. 6 to 8 then he invited my attention towards issues at Ex. O-7 and submitted that the second
party miserably failed to prove issues framed by this Tribunal.
36.
He lastly submitted that the second party adduced her oral evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief at Ex. UW-1 also filed copies of attendance register at Ex. U-14 for the period from March-
2014 to June-2014 which appears no seal and signature at Ex. U-15 letter of handing over Solapur Air Port from
Government of Maharashtra to the Air Port Authority of India dated 17/12/2012 at Ex. U-16. Muster Roll of Union
Steel i. e. First Party No. 7 for the period August 2008 to February 2015 and lastly at Ex. U-17 attendance register
for the period 02/02/2015 to 29/12/2015 which also not appears signature or stamp. All these documents are self
explanatory to establish his relationship of the employer-employee between first party No. 6 to 8 and second party.
First Party No. 5 unnecessarily made party in the present reference on the point of mis-joinder of necessary party,
reference against first party No. 5 is required to be rejected and prayed to reject the same.
37.
Then he submitted that it is well settled Law that unless the employer-employee relationship between
contract labour i. e. second party and the first party No. 5 is proved the claim of second party is not maintainable.
The burden to prove the relationship is obviously on the second party and hence, second party miserably failed to
bring on record any documentary evidence regarding their appointment orders, wages paid and supervision and
controlled by the employer. Therefore, the second party failed to prove that there existence any employer-employee
relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party and prayed that to reject the claim of second party
against first party No. 5.
38.
He relied upon the observations in -
i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (3) SCC 514
“wherein it is held that, “Employment of the workmen for doing a particular piece of work is at the instance of the
producer or the merchants on an ad hoc basis or job to job basis and, thus, the same may not lead to the conclusion
that relationship of employer and employee has came into being. ….”
ii)
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Taj Sats Air Caterers Ltd. And Another,
reported in 2019 (161) FLR 109 (Bombay High Court).
iii)
Rajesh Shah Vs. Their Workmen, United Workers Association & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) MhL. J. 943
(Bombay High Court).
iv)
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Ramchandran and Ors., reported in 2023 (1) SCC 463 (Supreme Court), and
prayed that the observations relied upon and on behalf of first party No. 5 as well as first party No. 1 to 4 also are
helpful to case of first party and prayed to pass appropriate order.
39.
On the contrary Shri. G. H. Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 submitted that in spite of given
repeated intimation first party No. 6 failed to give material instructions and documents and they have neither filed
W. S. nor led any evidence or filed any document and lastly prayed to pass appropriate order.
40.
On the contrary Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate fairly submitted that the first party No. 7 is required to
pay unpaid wages of two months from November-2015 and December 2015 and prayed to pass appropriate order.
41.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 8 none appeared nor submitted any oral submissions
reference proceeded ex-party since beginning.
42.
Having heard oral submissions of all the Ld. Advocates. I have gone through the contents of Statement of
Claim in which second party prayed to reinstate with continuity of service and full back wages along with benefits
of permanency/regularization in service since 2009. I have gone through all the demands raised on behalf of
second party and documents placed by the second party as well as the first party and the Regional Commissioner of
Labour (Central) Pune – cum – Conciliation Officer with list Ex. C-20 then I have gone through oral evidence led
by the second party and first party No. 1 to 5. First Party No. 6 to 8 chose remained absent. They have neither filed
their W. S. nor conducted cross-examination or not filed any copies of documents. I have also gone through written
synopsis of the argument filed on behalf of second party as well as first party No. 1 to 5. I have carefully gone
through observations relied by both the parties and considered oral submissions of the Ld. Advocates.
43.
The second party approached this Tribunal as per the certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 09/12/2016. The second party in the Statement of Claim prayed
mainly to reinstate herself at Ex. UW-1 and reiterated entire contentions of Statement of claim as it is on oath.
However, in her cross-examination conducted by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 by Shri. S. H. Chiwari, Ld.
Advocate some admission are brought on record. They are useful to reproduce as under:-
“शे खये की, २००८ वारी भी प्रथभत् वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय काभ वुरु केरे ल त्मालेऱी वज्जन ननचऱ शे भॎनेजय शोते.
शे खये की, काम कयामचे त्माफाफतचे आदेळ श्री. ननचऱ शे देत शोते ल केरेल्मा काभाचा ऩगाय देखीर तेच देत शोते. शे खये की, श्री
ननचऱ शे भशायाष्ट्र वलभान प्राधधकयणाचे अधधकायी शोते. शे खये की, भी काभालय रागरी त्मावाठी नोकयबयतीवाठी कुठरीशी
3664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
जाहशयात वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयणाने ल एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने हदरी नव्शती. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय प्रभोद
कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्ण कन्स्टस्रक्ळन मा ठेकेदायाॊच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी भी कयत शोते. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ शे
एअयऩोर्ट ॲथाेॎरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी २०१२ वाराऩावून आरे आशे. एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ आल्मानॊतय नोकयबयतीवाठी त्माॊनी जाहशयात हदरी नव्शती ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे खये की,
एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा नोकयी देण्मावॊदबाटत भाझी भुराखत घेतरी नव्शती ल भरा कुठरेशी नेभणूक ऩत्र हदरे
नव्शते. शे म्शणणे खये की, प्रभोद कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्णा कन्स्टस्रक्ळन शे ठेकेदाय वलभानतऱाशळलाम इतय हठकाणीशी
भरा काभ कयण्मावाठी ऩाठलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये आशे की, भरा नोकयीत कामभ करुन घेलू अवे २०१२ वारानॊतय एअयऩोर्ट
अथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने कधीशी वाॊधगतरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र हदरेरे
नाशी. शे खये की, भी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय २००८ वाराऩावून काभ कयत शोते त्मालेऱी भाझे शजेयीचे येकॉिट श्री. ननचऱ ल
उऩयोक्त नभूद ठेकेदाय शेच ठेलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भाझी ऩगायाची यक्कभ भाझे फॉक खात्मात जभा केरी जात अवे.
भाझा दयभशा ऩगाय श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ देत शोते.
प्रश्न: तुम्शारा ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत ऩालत्मा तुम्शी दाखर कयण्माव तमाय आशात का ?
उत्तय: कुठल्माशी ऩालत्मा देण्मात मेत नव्शत्मा.
ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत कागदालय वाशी घेण्मात मेत अवे ल तो कागद श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ त्माॊच्माकिे ठेलून घेत अवत. शे खये की,
ठेकेदाय माॊनी भरा काभ देणे फॊद केरे शोते. शे खये की, भी दाखत केरेल्मा शजेयीऩत्रकालय वाभनेलारा क्र. १ वे ४ च्मा कोणाशी
अधधका-माच्मा वह्मा ल शळक्के नाशीत तवेच ते शजेयीऩत्रके ऩिताऱणी केल्माफाफत ळेये देखीर नाशीत.
शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱाच्मा ताब्मात ३६५ एकय जभीन अवल्माचे भी खोर्े वाॊगत आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की,
वाभनेलारा क्र. १ ते ४ च्मा अधधका-मावलरुध्द चुकीची लक्तव्मे करून भी खोर्े प्रनतसाऩत्र दाखर केरे आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी
की, वाभनेलारा क्र. ४ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी चुकीच्मा भागण्मा केल्मा आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी वलभानतऱालयीर काभ फॊद
झाल्मानॊतय ऩावऩोर्ट ऑपीवरा ल इतय हठकाणी काभ केरे ल इतय हठकाणी वध्मा काभ कयत आशे. शे खये की, वाभनेलारा क्र. १
ते ४ ने हदरेरे कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र भी अशबरेखालय दाखर केरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयण केंद्रळावनाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी काभ कयते ल त्माॊना केंद्रळावनाच्मा वलट कामदे ल ननमभ रागू आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी खोर्ी वाष देत
आशे.
शे खये आशे की भी दाखर केरेरा ऩाव प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चे अधधकायी श्री. वज्जन ननचऱ माॊनी हदरे आशे. शे खये आशे की
तो ऩाव वलभानतऱाच्मा ऩरयवयात तात्ऩुयता प्रलेळाकरयता देण्मात आरेरा आशे. शे खये आशे की त्मा ऩावची भुदत हद.
३०/०४/२०१० ऩमंत शोती. शे खये आशे की प्रथभ ऩषकाय क्र. १ ते ४ माॊनी भरा हद. ३१/१२/२०१५ ऩमंत वलभानतऱ ऩरयवयात
प्रलेळाकरयता तवाच ऩाव हदरा शोता. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा देण्मात आरेल्मा प्रलेळाच्मा ऩावचा ओऱखऩत्र अवा चुकीचा
अथट रालुन त्माचा ओऱखऩत्र म्शणुन लाऩय करून प्रस्तुतची खोर्ी केव दाखर केरी आशे.”
Thereafter on behalf of first party No. 5 Smt. Gangishetty, Advocate holding for Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld.
Advocate for first party No. 5 conducted cross-examination and some more vital admissions are brought on record.
Therefore, they are also useful to reproduce the same which are as under:-
“भी इमत्ता ४ थी ऩमंत शळकरी आशे. भी स्लच्छतेचे काभ कयत शोते. २०१२ वाराऩमंत भी एअयऩोर्ट ऑथॉरयर्ी ऑप
इॊडिमा माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोते. शे खये की, वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे भॎनेजय शोते ल त्माॊच्मा शाताखारी भी काभ कयत शोते. शे खये की,
वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचे भॎनेजय शोते. २०१२ वारानॊतय प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा वलभानतऱाळी वॊफॊध याहशरा नाशी
ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच वलभानतऱालय काभ कयत शोते. काभाच्मा हठकाणी ठेकेदाय
मेत जात शोते ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा ठेकेदायाकिून ऩगाय शभऱत अवे. शे खये की, २०१२ वारानॊतय
भी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोते. भरा ज्मालेऱी काभालरुन काढण्मात आरे त्मालेऱी भी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४
माॊचेकिे काभारा शोते अवे भाझे म्शणणे आशे शे खये की, भाझी भागणी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेवलरुध्दच आशे. शे म्शणणे खये
नाशी की, प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा प्रस्तुत प्रकयणाळी कुठराशी वॊफॊध नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱालय काभ कयण्माव
वुरुलात केल्माऩावून ते काभ फॊद कयेऩमंत भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच काभ कयत शोते.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3665
शे खये की, भी नभूद केरेरी एर.आम.वी ऩॉशरवी भाझे लैमक्क्तक नालाने शोती. शे खये की, वज्जन ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी कुठरी
कामदेळीय कायलाई केरी नाशी. स्लत्शून वाॊगते की, त्माॊना नोर्ीव हदरी शोती. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, श्री ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी
केरेरे आयोऩ ननयाधाय अवून प्रस्तुतच्मा प्रकयणाळी काशीशी एक वॊफॊध नाशी ल ते वलट आयोऩ खोर्े आशेत.”
Thereafter on behalf of second party filed evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22.
On the contrary first party No. 1 to 8 have not examined any independent witness to prove their
contentions, averments and objections raised in their Written Statement.
44.
My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex. O-5 including issue of employer-employee relationship between
the first party and second party and the entitlements of the reliefs claimed by the second party. According to second
party she was working from 2008-2009 with Air Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port
as Sweeper-cum-Labourer with first party. According to second party Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air
Port since its inception. It is specific stand of second party that she was appointed by and through M. A. D. C. for
performing sweeping, cleaning and other managerial work at Solapur Air Port since 2008-2009 on the wages of Rs.
4,000/- to 5,000/-. She was further used to work plantation and maintenance and watering to existence plants,
greenery was also done by second party. She also used to cleaning bathrooms, urinals on daily basis. Therefore,
work done by second party was perennial in nature and not ending in nature. According to second party the said
work is still in existence at Solapur Air Port. However, second party also admits that first party No. 5 was looking
after and has total control over the Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4. At the time of changing of control
and taking charge, the first party No. 3 and 4 have assured second party that she will be made permanent and will
be pay salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employees. It is further case of the second party that
she was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port regarding she will be paid Rs.
8,000/- to 9,000/- towards wages but amount was not received to second party. It is also contention of the second
party that she was given identity card being an employee of the Air Port Authority. She used to mark attendance
which was recorded by Air Port In-charge, Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 5
have continuously and consistently kept supervision and control over the second party. Alternatively it is the case of
the second party that as an eye wash camouflage, the services employed were shown as contract labour through
first party No. 6, 7 and 8 for using a weapon to give go-by to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights
of permanency and regularization of services. In short the second party claimed that she was and is employee of
first party No. 1 to 4.
45.
While deciding the core issue of employer-employee relationship between the second party and the first
party No. 1 to 4, the second party though claimed she was an employee of first party No. 1 to 4 and she have
submitted that the copies of documents at Ex. U-4, U-11 and U-20 respectively claiming that she was in the
employment since 2008 till 28/12/2015, that means more than approximately for 7 years of the service. It is
pertinent to note that the second party have not filed on record crucial documents mainly her appointment letter,
salary slip, documents relating to show her leave at relevant time and any contribution paid towards P. F. or E. S. I.
C. etc. etc. on record. It is oral contention of the second party that her services were supervised and managed by
first party No. 1 to 4 whereas she was examined herself below Ex. UW-1. In her cross-examination she admits that
she was appoint in the employment of Solapur Air Port at that time no notice was published in the newspaper
regarding the recruitment of the employees. Surprisingly she admits that one Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and
M/s. Shrikrishna Construction Contractor through whom she was appointed. She further admits that the Solapur
Air Port is transferred to Air Port Authority of India since 2012. The said Air Port of India never published any
time any advertisement in newspaper regarding recruitment of the employees.
Further she admits that she was not called for interview by the Air Port Authority of India nor she was
issued appointment letter. Surprisingly, she admits that Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and M/s. Shrikrishna
Constriction Contractor who are first party No. 6 to 8 used to send her another work during her employment. She
admits that after 2012 the officers of Air Port Authority of India never assured her regarding the permanency in
the employment. Further Air Port of India have not issued any identity card. All these vital admissions are self
explanatory to decide relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4. Further she admits that she was
given the entry pass at Air Port Solapur. The period of entry pass was expired on 30/04/2010 and first party No. 1
to 4 have issued same entry pass to second party for the period ending on 31/12/2015.
46.
Admittedly, no appointment orders are issued, no payment slips are issued to the second party nor
termination order issued to the second party. In her cross-examination conduced by and on behalf of first party No.
5 she surprisingly admits that her claim is against only first party No. 1 to 4. She denied that since her employment
till her termination she worked through contractor. The Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 2A (2) of
the I. D. Act conducted conciliation proceedings and after its failure issued certificate to second party to approach
to appropriate forum. The documents which are placed on record mainly the demand notice dated 16/07/2016
certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune and copy of entry pass valid till 30/04/2010
and entry pass issued by Solapur Air Port valid till 31/12/2015 and one page of attendance register having no
signature, seal or name of the employer.
3666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
47.
It is true that the second party filed application at Ex. U-8 for direction to produce some copies of
documents at Ex. U-8 and U-9. Both the applications are partly allowed by my Ld. Predecessor by orders dated
13/03/2019 and 02/03/2023. But first party failed to produce those documents. Surprisingly, the second party filed
application at Ex. U-11 for permission to lead secondary evidence before the Court. The said application was
allowed and second party is permitted to lead secondary evidence. Therefore, on behalf of second party filed list of
documents at Ex. U-11 and at Ex. U-14 copy of attendance register for the period 09/03/2014 to 18/06/2014 does
not bear name of employer or signature of any concerned supervisor/manager or authorized officer. At Ex. U-15
the second party himself to file document showing that handing over/taking over of Solapur Air Port of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India in pursuance to G. R. Dated 04/12/2012 the first party
was transferred to Air Port Authority of India in the year 2012.
Most surprising the document which is filed
by the second party by way secondary evidence at Ex. U-16, it is the photocopy of attendance register showing
muster was kept by Union Steel First Party No. 6 for the period August-2008 to February-2015 at Ex. U-17 is
another attendance register for the period 02/02/2015 to 31/12/2015 which does not bear name of employer,
signature of any manager or authorized officer nor filed on record any document vouchers or bank statement
showing that the second party was paid directly by first party No. 1 to 4 whereas her claim of reinstatement of
continuity of service and back wages against first party No. 1 to 4. The documents which are placed on record are
most clearly showing that the second party was in the employment of Union Steel Contractor first party No. 6 since
2008. Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against first party No. 1 to 5. Two corroborate documents her
cross-examination below Ex. UW-1 is more than sufficient to establish the relationship between the second party
and first party No. 1 to 4 those documents loudly speaking that the second party was in the employment through
contractor that is first party No. 6 to 8.
48.
It should not be ignored that the first party No. 2 to 4 filed the copy of annual maintenance contract (Civil)
2015-2016 for operational area at Solapur Air Port Page No. 1 to 154 at Ex. C-17. The contract agreement dated
20/10/2015 signed between the Air Port Authority of India and M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions for supplying
manpower to first party No. 1 to 4. Considering all these documents mainly in the light of oral admissions given by
the second party in her cross-examination shows that she was never directly appointed by first party No. 1 to 4 nor
first party No. 5 at any point of time. Whereas documents herself placed on record showing that she was employed
through contractor namely Union Steel since 2008. Therefore, she was employee of contractor and not of first
party No. 1 to 4 as principal employer. These documents shows that there is no relationship between the second
party and first party No. 1 to 5 at any point of time.
49.
It is needless to mention here that in view of the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor and evidence led by
the second party it is admitted position that the second party was well aware that she was appointed through
contractor. However, she was contended that the said contract was sham and bogus and camouflage. As per
Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, there was no declaration regarding sham
and bogus contract unless and until it is declared by the appropriate authority that the said contract was sham and
bogus, the second party cannot claim any benefits as mentioned in her prayer clause of Statement of Claim against
first party No. 1 to 5. The entire burden was cast upon second party to establish there is employer-employee
relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4 and 5. However, though the burden cast upon second
party but she miserably failed to file on record cogent documentary evidence such as her appointment order, wages
paid by the first party No. 1 to 4 & 5 or she was issued any notice in her tenure of employment or any such
document which establishes the relationship between the first party No. 1 to 5 but the most relevant document
material are missing from the record.
50.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nilgiri (cited supra) where it is observed that unless it is proved by an appointment letter, salary etc. etc., it cannot
be said that there is any employer-employee relationship, moreover, unless there is reference to whether the
contract between the first party No. 1 and others regarding contract is sham and bogus, Tribunal cannot be
decided without referring such type of dispute to the Tribunal. On the contrary from the record first party No. 6 to
8 since beginning are the contractors.
51.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of International Air Port Authority of India Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers’ Union 2009 (123) FLR. has laid down that the Tribunal has to comply tests like
who pays the salary, who has power to remove/dismiss from service, or to initiate disciplinary action. In short who
has direct control and supervision over employees to decide whether the contract is nominal or only on paper. It is
further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unless there is invocation under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Tribunal cannot direct the principal employer to absorb or regularize services of the
contract labour. It is also held that the supervision and control of principal employer will not be only test to hold
that they are direct employees of the principal employer.
52.
On behalf of first party No. 5 so many observations are relied to show that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the first party and first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. In all the observations in sum and
substance are similar as discussed above. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is claim of the second party that she
was terminated on 28/12/2015 by the first party No. 1 to 4. In fact it is brought on record that she was contract
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3667
labour. Her termination appears to be non renewal of contract with first party No. 1 to 5. Therefore, termination
does not constituted retrenchment also. Therefore, she is not entitled to get relief of reinstatement with continuity
of service and to regularize in the employment since 2009 against first party No. 1 to 5. In absence of any
employer-employee relationship though the second party examined herself but failed to establish that there is
relationship of employer-employee between first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. Therefore, claim of
reinstatement and back wages against first party no. 1 to 5 required to be answered in negative.
As second party failed to prove the relationship between herself and first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, issue
is required to be answered in the negative.
53.
The another issue is in respect of entitlement of relief of second party. It is the case of the first party No. 1
to 4 since beginning that the first party No. 6 to 8 appointed the second party paid the salary, supervise and
manage her services, she was allotted work in different places other than first party. It is also contention that the
first party No. 6 to 8 she received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 and the first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal
employer of the second party. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demand of second
party and they are duty bound to comply all the statutory provisions of Labour Laws, Standing Orders, Circulars
related with second party’s employment.
54.
During the course of argument Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 fairly submitted that
during crucial period of termination of second party was not paid salary for the month of November and
December-2015. The contract with first party No. 1 to 4 came to an end on 31/12/2015 due to non renewal of
contract they are unable to provide employment to second party. However, they are ready to pay unpaid wages of
two months. It is pertinent to note here that though the second party in her statement of claim contended that work
which she was performed still in existence at first party No. 1 to 4. However, to show this fact neither filed any
document nor examined any independent witness to establish that the work is available. Mere allegations in the
Statement of Claim are not sufficient to hold that the work is available.
55.
At the same time it should not be ignored that admittedly since 2008 till 20/12/2015 she was working as
sweeping, cleaning and due to non renewal of contract, she was terminated without issuing notice by first party No.
6 to 8. At the most, she is entitled to get two months salary and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments that if reinstatement is not possible then concerned employee should be given lump-sum compensation
considering her 8 years service through contractor, notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other legal dues as
per applicable Law to the second party by first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- to second party, it will be met the ends of justice and no prejudice will be caused either to first party No.
6 to 8 or to the second party.
56.
Therefore, in this angle of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case I come to conclusion that
second party is entitled to get lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final of her claim. Therefore,
issue regarding entitlement should required to be answered in partly in affirmative and I answer the same in partly
in affirmative. I find much substance in the statement made on behalf first party No. 1 to 4 and first party No. 5,
the observations relied by the first parties are helpful to decide the issue of contract labour by this Tribunal.
Though on behalf of second party some observations are relied but they are not helpful to the facts and
circumstances of the present case in hand. With due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court I mentioned here that
the observations relied by the second party are not helpful to grant relief claimed by her.
57.
Therefore, reference needs to be answered partly in affirmative against the first party No.
6 to 8 only. With this, I proceed to pass following award:-
AWARD
1)
Reference (IT) No. 05/2017 is answered partly in affirmative against first party No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
First Party No. 6 to 8 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to second party within period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of award.
3)
No order as to costs.
4)
Copies of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.
5)
Proceedings is closed.
Date: 06-12-2025
M. R. KUMBHAR, Presiding Officer
3668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
amj/-
Assistant Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Solapur.
Argued on: 05/12/2025
Dictated on: 05 & 06/12/2025
Transcribed on: 08, 09 & 10/12/2025
Checked & Signed on: 11/12/2025
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 710.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार सेंरल एजवएिन जमजनस्ट्री; एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मिाराष्ट्र एयरृोटव डेवलृमेंट अ ॉररटी; मेससव
श्रीकृ्ि कंस्ट्रक्िंस; मेससव यूजनयन स्ट्टील; श्री प्रमोि टी. कुलाल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सैफन काजसम
बागवान के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिम औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 06/2017)
को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.04.2026
को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-44]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 710.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 06/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Central Aviation
Ministry; Airport Authority of India; Maharashtra Airport Development Authority; M/s. Shrikrishna
Constructions; M/s. Union Steel; Mr. Pramod T. Kulal and Shri. Saifan Kasim Bagwan which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.04.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-44]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SOLAPUR
Presided Over by M. R. Kumbhar, Presiding Officer
Reference (IT) No. 06/2017
Exhibit No.:
Dispute between:-
1)
Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
R/o. Govt. of India, New Delhi, Delhi
2)
Manager, Airport Authority of India,
R/o. A. N. Union Office, Port Cabin, New Airport
Colony, Parshiwada, Sahara-Andheri Road,
Mumbai – 400 009.
3)
Airport Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
4)
Office Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3669
5)
Maharashtra Airport Development Authority,
R/o. World Trade Centre, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai.
6)
M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions,
R/o. Block No. A/505, Yashraj, Bhekrao Nagar,
S. 177, Phursungi, Pune – 412 308.
7)
M/s. Union Steel,
R/o. B-Wing, 11 Floor, Flat No. 206,
Varsha Adarsha Co-op. Housing Society,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) Mumbai – 400 024.
8)
Mr. Pramod T. Kulal,
R/o. 4-A, Aaji Sainik Nagar, Vijapur Road,
Solapur.
… First Parties
And:-
Shri. Saifan Kasim Bagwan
Age: 44 Years; Occupation : Nil;
R/o. Rahul Nagar, Hotigi Road,
Solapur
… Second Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances:-
Advocate for First Parties No.1 To 4 :- Mr. S. S. Chiwari & S.S. Bendre
Advocate for First Party No. 5
:- Mr. V. B. Marathe
Advocate for First Party No. 6
:- Mr. G. H. Kulkarni
Advocate for First Party No. 7
:- Mr. B. T. Jadhav
Advocate for First Party No. 8
:- Mr. L. A. Gawali
Advocate for Second Party
:- Mr. V. R. Deshpande
AWARD
(Delivered on:- 06/12/2025)
1.
As per certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune to second Party Shri. Saifan
Kasim Bagwan as per Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the I. D. Act‘ for
brevity). After completion of mandatory 45 days of filing his dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore,
approached this Tribunal and directly filed her Statement of Claim under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act
for adjudication on 07/06/2017 in respect of dispute relating to reinstatement with full back wages and continue
service with status and benefits of permanency or regularization at Solapur Air Port.
2.
The Second Party has filed his Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and contended that he was working with Air
Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port from the year 2008-09 as Sweeper-cum-Labour with
First Party. The Secretary Central Aviation Ministry Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has
managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air Port Authority since its inception. The Second Party further
contended that initially he was appointed by and through Maharashtra Air Port Development Corporation (In short M
A D C) for performing sweeping, cleaning and other manual work at Solapur Air Port. He was being paid Rs. 4,000/-
to 5,000/- by M A D C. The area of Solapur Air Port is 365 Acre. Hence, the work of cleaning and sweeping was of
big nature and is required to be done on day to day basis. Beside the office control tower, other office rooms, godown,
entrance road, internal roads were also required to be clean and maintain properly and for that purpose services of
second party were required on day to day basis.
3.
He further contended that the work of plantation and maintenance of trees, watering to existing plants and
greenery was also done by the second party on daily basis. He used to clean bath-rooms, urinals, etc. etc. on daily
basis. Above work was performing as per direction and instruction of first party No. 3 and 4. According to second
3670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
party all above work is of perennial in nature and is of non ending in nature. All the works as stated above are still in
existence and will continue till existence of Air Port at Solapur.
4.
The second party further contended that M A D C i. e. First Party No. 5 was looking after and has total
control over the Solapur Air Port after 2012. The Solapur Air Port was under the control of Air Port In-charge and
office In-charge of Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4 at the time of change of control and at the time of
taking charge, First Party No. 3 and 4, they assured the second party that he will be made permanent and will be
giving pay, Salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employee. Therefore, he kept bonafide belief
towards assurance and continued him above mentioned work at Solapur Air Port under their control. He further
adhere that in the year 2014 second party was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air
Port Solapur that he will be paid Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month wages. However, he did not receive such amount of
wages and he was never given benefit of permanency though he was working continuously from the year 2008-09.
The wages paid to second party were far less than the statutory rate of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the first party has
committed breach of the statutory provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
Thereafter he was given Identity Card being the employee of the Air Port Authority. He specifically
contended that the attendance was to be marked and recorded by the Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge Solapur
Air Port. Both were having supervisory and managerial control over the second party. As an eye wash and camouflage
services the employees were shown as contract labourer through first parties No. 6, 7 and 8. The said trick was used
as weapon to give go-by or by-pass to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights of the second party.
Than even after the changes the so called labour contractors on paper. The second party was continued on his work as
per earlier system method and was doing some work as before.
5.
According to second party the work of daily nature/permanent nature cannot be allotted to labour contractor
and only work of temporary and continue nature can be allotted to labour contractor. The daily supervision and
control was of first parties No. 3 and 4. The paper work shown of first party to engage second party through labour
contractor was not legal, proper and bonafide. Rather the said paper work was done only with intention to deny
legitimate rights including permanency regularization of second party.
6.
The second party further contended that one Mr. Sajjan Nichal who was working as Manager has instructed
the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C. policy otherwise threatened to terminate their services. So the
second party along with other co-workers took the L. I. C. policy and also becoming members of Trade Unions.
Further in the month of December-2015 the second party and other co-workers were purposely not paid monthly
wages and during that period second party and other co-workers were forced to sign below agreement/affidavit/
document/contract prepared by them, which was not read over by the second party in their language known to them.
The second party and other co-workers were put under tremendous pressure and was subjected to harassing for
signing said agreement but second party remain firm in signing the said arbitrary, ex-party and illegal agreement.
Therefore, he was not paid wages of November and December-2015. Therefore, second party and other co-workers
were not allowed to sign the muster-roll from December-2015 onward. They refused to provide employment to
second party.
7.
According to the second party he was worked since 2008 to December-2015 with Solapur Air Port without
any break. The work performing by him is of perennial in nature and work is still in existence. The first party refused
to give employment only to deprive legitimate right of permanency and regularization.
8.
The second party lastly contended that he has completed more than 240 days service in each and every year
with Solapur Air Port who is the principal employer of the second party. Also first party No. 1-4 are principal
employer of the second party. However, the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provision and
procedure of Law as well as due process of Law. Even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1
to 4 by violating provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act as well as Section 4(c) of Standing Orders and relevant
circulars, regulations etc. etc. At the time of termination the first party has not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay,
nor paid compensation before terminating service. The termination of second party is by way of unfair labour
practices and sole intention is to deprive all benefits of permanency and regularization by violating principles of
natural justice, equity and fair play. The first party have adopted the forbidden policy of hire and fire. Therefore, the
second party issued legal notice dated 07/01/2016 through their advocate. However, the first party have given false
and contrary as well as evasive reply to it. Hence, the second party has filed Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2016 in
Industrial Court, Solapur. However, the said Court returned the complaint to second party with liberty to approach
appropriate authority/or court. Hence, the second party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter
submitted his case for conciliation before Conciliation Officer and Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune.
The Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune has issued certificate dated
09/12/2016 as provided under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the second party approached this Court and filed
his statement of claim in detail and prayed that the first party be directed to reinstate the second party at Solapur Air
Port from 28/12/2015 with full back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits and to grant status
and benefit of permanency regularization at Solapur Air Port from the date of completion of 240 days service at first
instance from 2009 with difference in wages and allowances along with 18% interest thereon and for unpaid salary of
month of November, December-2015 with 18% interest thereon till its actual realization.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3671
9.
After submitting the statement of claim second party my Ld. Predecessor issued notice to all the first parties
No. 1 to 8. In response to that Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate with Shri. S. S. Bendre, Ld. Advocate appeared
through First Parties No. 1 to 4 and filed detailed Written Statement at Ex. C-5 on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V.
B. Marthe, Ld. Advocate put his appearance and filed Say and Written Statement at Ex. CA-4. Shri. G. H. Kulkarni,
Ld. Advocate on behalf of first party No. 6, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. L. A.
Gawali, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 8 though put their appearance but failed to file their Written Statement.
Therefore, my Ld. Predecessor by an order dated 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against first party
No. 6 to 8.
10.
The first party No. 1 to 4 by filing their Written Statement at Ex. C-5 denied all the contentions, averments
and statements made in the statement of claim. It is specific case of the first party No. 1 to 4 that second party was
worked with Solapur Air Port are not true and correct. According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was
appointed by contractors that is first party No. 6 to 8. That the contents in respect of control, supervision by Solapur
Air Port since inception are not true and correct. Accordingly, the first party No. 3 was having supervisory control
over the Solapur Air since December-2012. The appointment of second party are denied specifically. The first party
No. 1 to 4 never used to give direction or any instruction for work. However, it is admitted that in respect of control
over the Solapur Air Port after 2012 is with Air Port Authority of India. That the first party No. 1 to 4 never assured
about permanency and regularization or other consequential benefits to the second party because second party was
never under the control of first party No. 1 to 4. The first party No. 1 to 4 never promised to pay an amount of Rs. 8-9
thousands per month towards wages. Then first party No. 1 to 4 never paid any wages to second party. Therefore,
committing any breach of minimum wages does not arise. First party No. 1 to 4 have never issued any identity card to
the second party being an employee of Air Port Authority of India and or of Air Port In-charge never marked
attendance nor kept supervision over the second party.
11.
According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was appointed by various contractors and working with
various contractors. The second party was working under direct control of various contractors that is first party No. 6
to 8 such as Union Steels, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Constructions. The first party No. 1 to 4 have never maintained
muster-roll for attendance and for work performance of second party neither assured at any time regarding
permanency as alleged in Statement of Claim. Moreover, as per contention of Statement of Claim first party No. 1 to 4
are not concerned with present dispute raised by the second party which is vague in nature.
12.
The entire contentions of statement of claim was denied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and contended that they
have not done any act such as termination, retrenchment or any act with intend to deprive legitimate benefit of
permanency or regularization of second party as the first party No. 1 to 4 never appointed the second party. Therefore,
question of illegal termination and violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act at all not arise as alleged against him.
13.
The first party No. 1 to 4 lastly contended that Solapur Air Port was under the control and supervision of M.
A. D. C. till December 2012. Thereafter Air Port is under the control of Air Port Authority of India that is first party
No. 1 to 4 that the first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concern about the appointment made by M. A. D. C. during
their tenure. The first party No. 1 to 4 never appoints any labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port, Air
Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to registered contractor that is first party No. 6 and 8
namely M/s. Shrikishna Construction, Solapur and thereafter M/s. Pramod T. Kulal, Solapur. The Air Port Authority
of India has continued work on contract awarded by M. A. D. C. for operational reasons till appointment of new
contractor. It is specific contention of first party No. 1 to 4 that the second party is appointed by the contractor and
therefore, the second party is removed by the said contractor. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages,
compensation, benefits provided as per Labour Laws and Standing Orders, implement the circulars etc. etc. as the
second party was under the control as well as supervision of first party No. 6 to 8.
Therefore, their services are controlled and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. As the second party has
received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal employer of second party.
Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demands of second party and duty bound to comply all
the statutory provisions of the Labour Laws, standing Orders, Circulars relating with second party and prayed that the
claim against first party No. 1 to 4 may kindly be dismissed.
14.
The first party No. 5 in their Written Statement filed below Ex. CA-4 denied all the contents, averments and
allegations made against first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim are false, baseless. It is further denied
that the second party was working with first party No. 5 as Sweeper-cum-Labourer. Further denied that the second
party was appointed by first party No. 5 at Mumbai for performing work of sweeping and cleaning and was paying
wages of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month.
15.
The first party No. 5 also denied that the first party No. 5 was required to maintain and clean the property at
Solapur. Further denied that the first party No. 5 was to maintain work of plantation and maintenance and of watering
the existing plants to clean the bath-rooms, urinals etc. Further denied that the work is of perennial in nature and not
ending. The contentions of statement of claim are false and baseless. It is fact that the first party No. 5 was looking
after Solapur Air Port till December-2012 as regards first party No. 3 and 4. This party is not concerned with the
contents raised in Statement of Claim against them due to want of knowledge.
3672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.
The first party No. 5 lastly contended that they have never engaged or appointed the second party at any time
till its tenure. In fact this party used to give work of purely temporarily in nature. Therefore, contractor not only that
the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was got done on contractual basis. Therefore,
there is no employer-employee relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party at any point of time till
December-2012. There is no compliance against the first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim at para No.
20 clearly shows that he is claiming reinstatement with full back wages from 28/12/2015. Moreover, the second party
was admitted that after December-2012, Solapur Air Port was handed over as per Government Resolution of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India. Therefore, first party No. 5 was unnecessarily made party
in this reference. The contents regarding continuous work from 2008-09 till 2010 as this first party never appointed
the second party one Mr. Sajjan Nichal had never instructed the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C.
Policy.
In fact the second party and co-worker of contractor M/s. Union Steel and the said contractor had taken
policy of its workers which is knowing to do with Mr. Sajjan Nichal. Therefore this first party No. 5 is not liable
either to reinstate or to give back wages or any such prayers made against them. Therefore, reference against first
party No. 5 requires to be rejected and prayed to dismiss the same.
17.
The first party No. 6, 7 and 8 though appeared through Ld. Advocates, but failed to file their Written
Statement if any on record. The Ld. Advocates have participated in respective dates of proceedings. My Ld.
Predecessor below Ex. U-1 on 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against these first parties.
18.
From the rival contentions and submissions made in the Statement of Claim as well as Written Statement of
first party No. 1 to 5 issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor below Ex. O-7 on 06/08/2019 and my findings to
them are as under:-
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1)
Whether the Second Party is entitled for the reliefs claimed in
the statement of claim?
… Partly in Affirmative
against First Party
No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
Whether the Second Party proves that there exist an employer-
employee relationship between Second Party and First Party?
… In the negative in
respect of First Party
No. 1 to 5 And
In the affirmative in
respect of First Party
No. 6 to 8
3)
What Award?
… As per final Award.
REASONS
19.
Second Party in respect of their contention raised in Statement of Claim have filed some copies of documents
with List Ex. U-4 comprising of demand notice dated 16/07/2016 given by second party and certificate dated
09/12/2016 issued by Conciliation Officer, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune. Second party also filed
additional documents along with list Ex. U-11 comprising of copy of attendance register regarding second
party(Exh.U-14), charge report of handing over/taking over charge form Solapur Airport Government of Maharashtra
to Airports Authority of India (Exh. U-15), copy of muster roll maintained by Union Steel (Exh. U-16), copy of
attendance register regarding second party (Exh. U-17) and copy of legal notice issued by second party through
Adv. Kashid (Exh. U-18) and therefore, second party also filed some documents along with list Ex. U-20 comprising
of original entry permit given to second party by Incharge Solapur Air Port and photocopy of attendance register
showing attendance of second party with Solapur Air Port Incharge for the month of September-2008 (Exh. U-21). On
the contrary the first party No. 2 to 4 have also filed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-17 comprising of
copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (civil) 2015-16 for operational Area at Soalpur Airport and on behalf of first
party No. 5 have placed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-13 comprising of copy of letter dated 12/07/2013,
copy of letter dated 07/10/2013, copy of letter dated 31/12/2013, copy of letter dated 30/01/2013, copy of letter dated
26/05/2013, copy of letter dated 08/04/2013, copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2013, statement of
payment and copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2014. The first party No. 6 to 8 neither filed Written
Statement nor produced any document on record.
20.
The second party have filed application at Ex. U-8 for production of documents which was partly allowed by
my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13/08/2019 and directed to produce the documents called for. Again second
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3673
party filed another application for production of documents at Ex. U-9 which was partly allowed vide order dated
02/03/2023. Thereafter second party have again filed application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
below Ex. U-10, U-12. Both applications were allowed vide Order dated 09/02/2024.
21.
The second party to prove his claim made in the Statement of Claim have examined himself at Ex. UW-1 by
filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. He was duly cross-examined by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 5
respectively but no cross order passed against the first party No. 6 to 8. Thereafter on behalf of second party filed
evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22. On the contrary the first party No. 1 to 4, 5 and 6 to 8 have not led any oral
evidence before this tribunal.
22.
Conciliation officer as per direction of this tribunal produced copies of documents with list Ex. C-20 that is
conciliation proceedings given by Conciliation officer And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune(containing
102 pages) on 23/8/2024.
Heard Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate for second party and Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with
Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate for first party No. 5, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. G. H.
Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 and on behalf of first party No. 8 Shri. L. A. Gawali chose remained
absent after filing their vakalatnamas. In addition to this Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate filed Written Synopsis
of argument at Ex. U-24 with list of case-laws. On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Bendre,
Ld. Advocate also placed on record Written Synopsis of argument at Ex. C-23 with list of citations. On the contrary
on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate filed notes of
argument at Ex. CA-7 with list of citations. Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 submitted and
admitted that the second party was in the employment of first party No. 6 to 8 they are contractors. Their contract was
terminated at the end of December-2015. Due to non renewal of contract the services of second party was terminated
and first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay two months unpaid salary only and prayed to pass appropriate order.
23.
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate Shri. V. R. Deshpande for second party submitted in detail
as per the contentions of statement of claim. With the help of oral as well as documentary evidence, he further
submitted that the second party was not paid wages of November and December-2015 because the second party and
other co-workers have refused to sign agreement. Therefore, they were not allowed to sign muster roll since
December-2015 onward and also refused to provide employment since then. He further submitted that the second
party and other co-workers have worked from 2008 with Solapur Air Port till end of December-2015 without any
break. He further submitted that the work performed by the second party is of perennial in nature and the said work is
still in existence. However, for no reason from December-2015 the first party have refused to give employment to
second party with intention to deprive second party from their legitimate benefits of permanency.
24.
He further strongly submitted that the second party has completed more than 240 days of service in each and
every year with Solapur Air Port Authority that is first party No. 2 to 4. Solapur Air Port who is the principal
employer of the second party. So also first party No. 1 to 4 are principal employer of the second party. He then
submitted that the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provisions of Law and procedure of
Law and deprived the benefit of permanency even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1 to
4. Solapur Air Port authority have failed to observe the provision of Section 25-F and provisions of Section 4(c) of the
Standing Orders relevant circulars as well as Resolutions passed from time to time. He put his great emphasis on the
issue of termination and submitted that the first party have not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay, compensation
before terminating services of the second party. Termination of second party is hastily, abruptly and by engaging into
unfair labour practices with sole intention to deprive from benefit of permanency. Therefore, termination is illegal and
not bonafide. The first party also violated principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. They have adopted
forbidden policy of hire and fire.
25.
Then he invited my attention towards legal notice dated 07/01/2016 issued through their advocate to which
second party received false and contrary and evasive reply then he submitted that the second party and other co-
workers have filed complaint of unfair labour practices bearing ULP No. 35/2016 before this Court. However, the
Industrial Court, Solapur returned the said complaint with liberty to approach appropriate forum. Therefore, second
party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter submitted case for conciliation with Regional
Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune and after filing application to implement first party No. 6 to 8 they were
made parties to the proceedings. He further submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune had
issued certificate dated 09/12/2016 as per Section 2A of the I. D. Act to file this reference before this Tribunal.
Therefore, reference made by the second party is maintainable.
26.
Then he invited my attention towards the order below Ex. U-8 and U-9 and submitted that though as per
direction of this Tribunal regarding muster-roll, payment register, labour contract agreements, licence etc. etc., but
first party failed to produce the same. Then he invited my attention towards oral evidence of the second party at Ex.
UW-1 and put his great emphasis on the list of document at Ex. U-11 and submitted that the second party is workman
and workers does not have any custody of original documents. Therefore, second party has filed documents and call
for the said documents from the custody of first party but in spite of directions to produce by this Tribunal first party
have not produced documents. Then he invited my attention towards order below Ex. U-12 and submitted as per the
3674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
permission of this Tribunal. The second party produced some copies of documents along with list Ex. U-12 which is
at Ex. U-14 to U-18 i. e. copies of muster rolls, documents of handling over the Air Port Management, legal notice
etc.. Those are required to be read in evidence. Then filed some more copies of documents with list Ex. U-20 and U-
21 respectively. He then submitted that the second party as proved his case that the termination of service from
28/12/2015 is illegal and act of unfair labour practices. Therefore, second party is entitled for the permanency along
with consequential benefits and from the month of January 2009. According to Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate
oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of second party have gone unchallenged, unrebutted or uncontroverted.
Therefore, reference of second party is required to be allowed and prayed to allow the same.
27.
He lastly submitted that the first party has not lead its own oral/documentary evidence to prove their defense,
objection and contentions in Written Statement. First parties have neither produced any document in their custody
even after directions from this Tribunal nor producing their own evidence. So also first party No. 6 to 8 have also not
lead their own evidence nor entered into witness box. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the first
party. He further submitted that as per settled Law, pleadings and written statement is not evidence. The first party
have taken adjournments but failed to file their own evidence. Therefore, defense cannot be liable to be considered for
want of their evidence and prayed to allow reference with all prayers made therein.
28.
He relied upon the following citations:-
i) Iswar Bhai C Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 1341)
ii) Reportable judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 20/12/2024
and relied upon observations at para No. 27 and 28 which reads as -
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary
litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,
thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the
High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith. However, the
appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for
but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-
retiral benefits.
iii)
Then he relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court between – The Mysore Electrical
Industries Ltd. Vs. Engineering And General Workers Union decided on 09/10/2023 in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2023
(L-RES).
iv) Then he relied upon observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 (Shripal &
Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad) and relied upon observations in para No. 15 which reads as under:-
15.
It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer‘s
failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing
municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the
absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique
of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of
India 3 in the following paragraphs:
―22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits,
job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining
labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear
an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3675
but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to
address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often labeled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such mis-classification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of
constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for
skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary
employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as
pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.‖
v)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajranagar
Coal Mines Workers’ Union in Civil Appeal No. 4092-4093/2024 relied upon observations at para No. 22 and 23
which reads as under:-
―22. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to a
conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated previously, we
do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However, as the case was argued
at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals. What we have referred to here in-
above are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court. In view of the concurrent findings
of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of work, continuous working of the workmen, we
are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and
therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages‖.
vi)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer
I/R to Mangmat. of FCI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2417 – 2418 of 2014 and relied upon observations at para No. 34.
―34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when
there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give
direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-hoc/temporary
worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would
be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize such a person, only on the
basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may amount to backdoor entry into the
service which is an anathema to Art. 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when
the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment
Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself
under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court
are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-
regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases
and would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the
equality by upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision‖.
vii) He lastly relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court between the Air India Statutory corporation
Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. decided on 06/12/1996, Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-34 of 1996 and prayed
to allow the reference of section party with all prayers made therein.
29.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate submitted in detail as per
the written statement filed on record. He further submitted that the second party prepared the present reference against
3676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
stoppage of their work by the contractor and claiming the benefit of permanency and regularization at Solapur Air
Port from the completion of their 240 days of their service at first instance i. e. December 2009 and also claimed
difference of that first wages along with 18% p. a. interest therein. He invited my attention towards the Written
Statement filed on record and contention therein and submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 mainly contended that
the reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of the back door entry who come in the employment by using back
door entry must go through back door. He then submitted that Solapur Air Port Authority was under the control and
supervision of M. A. D. C. first party No. 5 till December-2012 and thereafter under control of Air Port Authority of
India that is first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concerned about appointment
made by M. A. D. C. during their tenure. He put his great emphasis on the document filed by the second party and
submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 never appoint any Labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port then
he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to the registered contractor
that is first party No. 6 to 8. The second party was appointed by the contractor and therefore, second party is removed
by the said contractor. Therefore, the first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages, compensation, benefits as per the
provisions of Labour Laws.
30.
Then he submitted that the second party was under the control of the first party No. 6 to 8 contractor at
relevant time. Therefore, second party was working for the contractor. Moreover, work of second party was controlled
and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. All these facts were admitted by the second party in their cross-
examination.
31.
He lastly submitted that the second party was never appointed by the first party No. 1 to 4 in the year 2009
whereas they were appointed by contractor namely Union Steel, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Construction i. e. first
party No. 6 to 8 for day to day work of cleaning and maintenance work at Solapur Air Port. The said fact is admitted
by the second party in their cross-examination. Therefore, the employer for second party is of first party No. 6 to 8.
The second party was never controlled nor paid by the M. A. D. C. The demand vouchers were prepared and
maintained by the M. A. D. C. Their work at Solapur Air Port was stopped by the first party No. 6 to 8 that is
contractor. The attendance register produced on record, it does not bear signature and office seal of Air Port Authority
of India nor appeared seal of Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India never
published any advertisement for appointment or never initiated procedure for recruitment of second party nor issued
any identity card as claimed by the second party. Therefore, the present reference is not tenable and maintainable as
per Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. He invited my attention towards definition of retrenchment and
submitted that the termination of workman service due to non renewal of fixed term of contract or the termination of
such contract as per its term does not constitute retrenchment. He further submitted that the service contract of first
party No. 6 to 8 was completed, its tenure and same was not continued and hence, the work allotted through
contractor to second party come to an end. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between first party
No. 1 to 4 and second party nor there is no any appointment nor made any payment nor made any supervision or
control. Therefore, question of violation of Section 25-F and illegal termination does not arise and also question of
payment of compensation does not arise and prayed to reject reference of second party.
32.
He further adhere that the second party can approach directly to the M. A. D. C. i. e. first party No. 5 as
initial period of 240 days service was completed prior to December 2012 at Solapur Air Port. Therefore, the present
reference at all not tenable and maintainable against first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the same.
33.
He relied upon various observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court in which Ex.
C-23 page (No. 7 A) State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293 wherein it is held that, ―Appointment –
Nature of appointment: There is estoppel against challenging nature of appointment once having duly accepted the
same: Having accepted contractual appointment, respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their
appointment.
B]
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 01 wherein in para No. 34 and 36 it is held that -
34. …………..
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with
the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the
same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes
to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis,
the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he
would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3677
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless
the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment'
in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould
the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to
continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden
of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
36.
While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent,
courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual
in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be
true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some
employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would
not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who
has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will
be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a
contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power,
that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or
temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be
getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After
all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept
a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context
that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned
knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The
claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be
considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making
regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been
working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the
nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the
procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of
constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
C]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal and others (2011) SCC 429 wherein in para No. 8 of the said judgment it
is held that -
8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in
pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had
been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16
should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an
employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of
compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process,
can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be `litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years,
let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not
working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing
3678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the
cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or
contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for
framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
part time temporary employees.
(v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
D]
State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247
E]
Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 300
F]
K. K. Suresh V. Food Corpn. Of India (2018) 17 SCC
641
G]
Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 1417
H]
Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Anr. AIR 2014 SC 1848
I]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001 SC
3527
J]
Jt. Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors. [2025 (185) FLR
864 SC]
And prayed that observations relied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and the disputed question therein
is similar to that of the dispute raised by the second party in present case in hand. Therefore, observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court are helpful to the case of the first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the claim of second
party against First Party No. 1 to 4.
34.
On the contrary Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 5 vehemently submitted that the
present reference is referred by the Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune by its certificate dated
09/12/2016 which is placed on record for determination of dispute between parties. The second party raised
demand on 01/07/2016 for their reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages from
completion of 240 days in service. He read over certificate issued by Regional Commissioner (Central) Pune and
submitted that the second party raised dispute under Section 2A of the I. D. Act in regarding termination from
service by the Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted certificate was issued as mandatory of completion of
45 days of filing/raising dispute by second party before Conciliation Officer as provided under the I. D. Act then he
read over Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and Written Statement filed on record at Ex. CA-4.
35.
He put his great emphasis on the issue that there was no employer-employee relationship between first
party No. 5 and second party. He further submitted that first party No. 5 used to give work purely temporary in
nature through contractor not only that the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was
got done on contract basis. In the present reference contractors are made parties as first party No. 6 to 8. Therefore,
it is clear that the second party is admitting that he was appointing by and through contractor. Her claim if any is
against first party No. 6 to 8 then he invited my attention towards issues at Ex. O-7 and submitted that the second
party miserably failed to prove issues framed by this Tribunal.
36.
He lastly submitted that the second party adduced his oral evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief at Ex. UW-1 also filed copies of attendance register at Ex. U-14 for the period from March-
2014 to June-2014 which appears no seal and signature at Ex. U-15 letter of handing over Solapur Air Port from
Government of Maharashtra to the Air Port Authority of India dated 17/12/2012 at Ex. U-16. Muster Roll of Union
Steel i. e. First Party No. 7 for the period August 2008 to February 2015 and lastly at Ex. U-17 attendance register
for the period 02/02/2015 to 29/12/2015 which also not appears signature or stamp. All these documents are self
explanatory to establish his relationship of the employer-employee between first party No. 6 to 8 and second party.
First Party No. 5 unnecessarily made party in the present reference on the point of mis-joinder of necessary party,
reference against first party No. 5 is required to be rejected and prayed to reject the same.
37.
Then he submitted that it is well settled Law that unless the employer-employee relationship between
contract labour i. e. second party and the first party No. 5 is proved the claim of second party is not maintainable.
The burden to prove the relationship is obviously on the second party and hence, second party miserably failed to
bring on record any documentary evidence regarding their appointment orders, wages paid and supervision and
controlled by the employer. Therefore, the second party failed to prove that there existence any employer-employee
relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party and prayed that to reject the claim of second party
against first party No. 5.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3679
38.
He relied upon the observations in -
i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (3) SCC 514
“wherein it is held that, “Employment of the workmen for doing a particular piece of work is at the instance of the
producer or the merchants on an ad hoc basis or job to job basis and, thus, the same may not lead to the conclusion
that relationship of employer and employee has came into being. ….”
ii)
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Taj Sats Air Caterers Ltd. And Another,
reported in 2019 (161) FLR 109 (Bombay High Court).
iii)
Rajesh Shah Vs. Their Workmen, United Workers Association & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) MhL. J. 943
(Bombay High Court).
iv)
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Ramchandran and Ors., reported in 2023 (1) SCC 463 (Supreme Court), and
prayed that the observations relied upon and on behalf of first party No. 5 as well as first party No. 1 to 4 also are
helpful to case of first party and prayed to pass appropriate order.
39.
On the contrary Shri. G. H. Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 submitted that in spite of given
repeated intimation first party No. 6 failed to give material instructions and documents and they have neither filed
W. S. nor led any evidence or filed any document and lastly prayed to pass appropriate order.
40.
On the contrary Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate fairly submitted that the first party No. 7 is required to
pay unpaid wages of two months from November-2015 and December 2015 and prayed to pass appropriate order.
41.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 8 none appeared nor submitted any oral submissions
reference proceeded ex-party since beginning.
42.
Having heard oral submissions of all the Ld. Advocates. I have gone through the contents of Statement of
Claim in which second party prayed to reinstate with continuity of service and full back wages along with benefits
of permanency/regularization in service since 2009. I have gone through all the demands raised on behalf of
second party and documents placed by the second party as well as the first party and the Regional Commissioner of
Labour (Central) Pune – cum – Conciliation Officer with list Ex. C-20 then I have gone through oral evidence led
by the second party and first party No. 1 to 5. First Party No. 6 to 8 chose remained absent. They have neither filed
their W. S. nor conducted cross-examination or not filed any copies of documents. I have also gone through written
synopsis of the argument filed on behalf of second party as well as first party No. 1 to 5. I have carefully gone
through observations relied by both the parties and considered oral submissions of the Ld. Advocates.
43.
The second party approached this Tribunal as per the certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 09/12/2016. The second party in the Statement of Claim prayed
mainly to reinstate himself at Ex. UW-1 and reiterated entire contentions of Statement of claim as it is on oath.
However, in his cross-examination conducted by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 by Shri. S. H. Chiwari,
Ld. Advocate some admission are brought on record. They are useful to reproduce as under:-
“शे खये की, २००८ वारी भी प्रथभत् वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय काभ वुरु केरे ल त्मालेऱी वज्जन ननचऱ शे भॎनेजय शोते.
शे खये की, काम कयामचे त्माफाफतचे आदेळ श्री. ननचऱ शे देत शोते ल केरेल्मा काभाचा ऩगाय देखीर तेच देत शोते. शे खये की, श्री
ननचऱ शे भशायाष्ट्र वलभान प्राधधकयणाचे अधधकायी शोते. शे खये की, भी काभालय रागरी त्मावाठी नोकयबयतीवाठी कुठरीशी
जाहशयात वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयणाने ल एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने हदरी नव्शती. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय प्रभोद
कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्ण कन्स्टस्रक्ळन मा ठेकेदायाॊच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी भी कयत शोताेे. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ
शे एअयऩोर्ट अॎथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी २०१२ वाराऩावून आरे आशे. एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ आल्मानॊतय नोकयबयतीवाठी त्माॊनी जाहशयात हदरी नव्शती ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे खये की,
एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा नोकयी देण्मावॊदबाटत भाझी भुराखत घेतरी नव्शती ल भरा कुठरेशी नेभणूक ऩत्र हदरे
नव्शते. शे म्शणणे खये की, प्रभोद कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्णा कन्स्टस्रक्ळन शे ठेकेदाय वलभानतऱाशळलाम इतय हठकाणीशी
भरा काभ कयण्मावाठी ऩाठलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये आशे की, भरा नोकयीत कामभ करुन घेलू अवे २०१२ वारानॊतय एअयऩोर्ट
अथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने कधीशी वाॊधगतरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र हदरेरे
नाशी. शे खये की, भी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय २००८ वाराऩावून काभ कयत शोताेे त्मालेऱी भाझे शजेयीचे येकॉिट श्री. ननचऱ ल
उऩयोक्त नभूद ठेकेदाय शेच ठेलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भाझी ऩगायाची यक्कभ भाझे फॉक खात्मात जभा केरी जात अवे.
भाझा दयभशा ऩगाय श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ देत शोते.
प्रश्न: तुम्शारा ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत ऩालत्मा तुम्शी दाखर कयण्माव तमाय आशात का ?
उत्तय: कुठल्माशी ऩालत्मा देण्मात मेत नव्शत्मा.
3680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत कागदालय वाशी घेण्मात मेत अवे ल तो कागद श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ त्माॊच्माकिे ठेलून घेत अवत. शे खये की,
ठेकेदाय माॊनी भरा काभ देणे फॊद केरे शोते. शे खये की, भी दाखत केरेल्मा शजेयीऩत्रकालय वाभनेलारा क्र. १ वे ४ च्मा कोणाशी
अधधका-माच्मा वह्मा ल शळक्के नाशीत तवेच ते शजेयीऩत्रके ऩिताऱणी केल्माफाफत ळेये देखीर नाशीत.
शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱाच्मा ताब्मात ३६५ एकय जभीन अवल्माचे भी खोर्े वाॊगत आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की,
वाभनेलारा क्र. १ ते ४ च्मा अधधका-मावलरुध्द चुकीची लक्तव्मे करून भी खोर्े प्रनतसाऩत्र दाखर केरे आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी
की, वाभनेलारा क्र. ४ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी चुकीच्मा भागण्मा केल्मा आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी वलभानतऱालयीर काभ फॊद
झाल्मानॊतय ऩावऩोर्ट ऑपीवरा ल इतय हठकाणी काभ केरे ल इतय हठकाणी वध्मा काभ कयत आशे. शे खये की, वाभनेलारा क्र. १
ते ४ ने हदरेरे कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र भी अशबरेखालय दाखर केरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयण केंद्रळावनाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी काभ कयते ल त्माॊना केंद्रळावनाच्मा वलट कामदे ल ननमभ रागू आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी खोर्ी वाष देत
आशे.
शे खये आशे की भी दाखर केरेरा ऩाव प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चे अधधकायी श्री. वज्जन ननचऱ माॊनी हदरे आशे. शे खये आशे की
तो ऩाव वलभानतऱाच्मा ऩरयवयात तात्ऩुयता प्रलेळाकरयता देण्मात आरेरा आशे. शे खये आशे की त्मा ऩावची भुदत हद.
३०/०४/२०१० ऩमंत शोती. शे खये आशे की प्रथभ ऩषकाय क्र. १ ते ४ माॊनी भरा हद. ३१/१२/२०१५ ऩमंत वलभानतऱ ऩरयवयात
प्रलेळाकरयता तवाच ऩाव हदरा शोता. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा देण्मात आरेल्मा प्रलेळाच्मा ऩावचा ओऱखऩत्र अवा चुकीचा
अथट रालुन त्माचा ओऱखऩत्र म्शणुन लाऩय करून प्रस्तुतची खोर्ी केव दाखर केरी आशे.”
Thereafter on behalf of first party No. 5 Smt. Gangishetty, Advocate holding for Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld.
Advocate for first party No. 5 conducted cross-examination and some more vital admissions are brought on record.
Therefore, they are also useful to reproduce the same which are as under:-
“भी इमत्ता आठलीऩमंत शळकराेे आशे. भी स्लच्छतेचे काभ कयत शोताेे. २०१२ वाराऩमंत भी एअयऩोर्ट ऑथॉरयर्ी
ऑप इॊडिमा माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोताेे. शे खये की, वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे भॎनेजय शोताेे ल त्माॊच्मा शाताखारी भी काभ कयत शोताेे.
शे खये की, वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचे भॎनेजय शोताेे. २०१२ वारानॊतय प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा वलभानतऱाळी वॊफॊध
याहशरा नाशी ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच वलभानतऱालय काभ कयत शोताेे. काभाच्मा
हठकाणी ठेकेदाय मेत जात शोते ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा ठेकेदायाकिून ऩगाय शभऱत अवे. शे खये की,
२०१२ वारानॊतय भी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोताेे. भरा ज्मालेऱी काभालरुन काढण्मात आरे त्मालेऱी भी
प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेकिे काभारा शोताेे अवे भाझे म्शणणे आशे शे खये की, भाझी भागणी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेवलरुध्दच
आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा प्रस्तुत प्रकयणाळी कुठराशी वॊफॊध नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱालय
काभ कयण्माव वुरुलात केल्माऩावून ते काभ फॊद कयेऩमंत भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच काभ कयत शोताेे.
शे खये की, भी नभूद केरेरी एर.आम.वी ऩॉशरवी भाझे लैमक्क्तक नालाने शोती. शे खये की, वज्जन ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी कुठरी
कामदेळीय कायलाई केरी नाशी. स्लत्शून वाॊगते की, त्माॊना नोर्ीव हदरी शोती. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, श्री ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी
केरेरे आयोऩ ननयाधाय अवून प्रस्तुतच्मा प्रकयणाळी काशीशी एक वॊफॊध नाशी ल ते वलट आयोऩ खोर्े आशेत.”
Thereafter on behalf of second party filed evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22.
On the contrary first party No. 1 to 8 have not examined any independent witness to prove their
contentions, averments and objections raised in their Written Statement.
44.
My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex. O-5 including issue of employer-employee relationship between
the first party and second party and the entitlements of the reliefs claimed by the second party. According to second
party he was working from 2008-2009 with Air Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port as
Sweeper-cum-Labourer with first party. According to second party Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air
Port since its inception. It is specific stand of second party that he was appointed by and through M. A. D. C. for
performing sweeping, cleaning and other managerial work at Solapur Air Port since 2008-2009 on the wages of Rs.
4,000/- to 5,000/-. He was further used to work plantation and maintenance and watering to existence plants,
greenery was also done by second party. He also used to cleaning bathrooms, urinals on daily basis. Therefore,
work done by second party was perennial in nature and not ending in nature. According to second party the said
work is still in existence at Solapur Air Port. However, second party also admits that first party No. 5 was looking
after and has total control over the Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4. At the time of changing of control
and taking charge, the first party No. 3 and 4 have assured second party that he will be made permanent and will
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3681
be pay salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employees. It is further case of the second party that
he was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port regarding he will be paid Rs.
8,000/- to 9,000/- towards wages but amount was not received to second party. It is also contention of the second
party that he was given identity card being an employee of the Air Port Authority. He used to mark attendance
which was recorded by Air Port In-charge, Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 5
have continuously and consistently kept supervision and control over the second party. Alternatively it is the case of
the second party that as an eye wash camouflage, the services employed were shown as contract labour through
first party No. 6, 7 and 8 for using a weapon to give go-by to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights
of permanency and regularization of services. In short the second party claimed that he was and is employee of
first party No. 1 to 4.
45.
While deciding the core issue of employer-employee relationship between the second party and the first
party No. 1 to 4, the second party though claimed he was an employee of first party No. 1 to 4 and he have
submitted that the copies of documents at Ex. U-4, U-11 and U-20 respectively claiming that he was in the
employment since 2008 till 28/12/2015, that means more than approximately for 7 years of the service. It is
pertinent to note that the second party have not filed on record crucial documents mainly his appointment letter,
salary slip, documents relating to show his leave at relevant time and any contribution paid towards P. F. or E. S. I.
C. etc. etc. on record. It is oral contention of the second party that his services were supervised and managed by
first party No. 1 to 4 whereas he was examined himself below Ex. UW-1. In his cross-examination he admits that
he was appoint in the employment of Solapur Air Port at that time no notice was published in the newspaper
regarding the recruitment of the employees. Surprisingly he admits that one Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and
M/s. Shrikrishna Construction Contractor through whom he was appointed. He further admits that the Solapur Air
Port is transferred to Air Port Authority of India since 2012. The said Air Port of India never published any time
any advertisement in newspaper regarding recruitment of the employees.
Further he admits that he was not called for interview by the Air Port Authority of India nor he was issued
appointment letter. Surprisingly, he admits that Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and M/s. Shrikrishna Constriction
Contractor who are first party No. 6 to 8 used to send him another work during his employment. He admits that
after 2012 the officers of Air Port Authority of India never assured him regarding the permanency in the
employment. Further Air Port of India have not issued any identity card. All these vital admissions are self
explanatory to decide relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4. Further he admits that he was
given the entry pass at Air Port Solapur. The period of entry pass was expired on 30/04/2010 and first party No. 1
to 4 have issued same entry pass to second party for the period ending on 31/12/2015.
46.
Admittedly, no appointment orders are issued, no payment slips are issued to the second party nor
termination order issued to the second party. In his cross-examination conduced by and on behalf of first party No.
5 he surprisingly admits that his claim is against only first party No. 1 to 4. He denied that since his employment
till his termination he worked through contractor. The Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 2A (2) of the
I. D. Act conducted conciliation proceedings and after its failure issued certificate to second party to approach to
appropriate forum. The documents which are placed on record mainly the demand notice dated 16/07/2016
certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune and copy of entry pass valid till 30/04/2010
and entry pass issued by Solapur Air Port valid till 31/12/2015 and one page of attendance register having no
signature, seal or name of the employer.
47.
It is true that the second party filed application at Ex. U-8 for direction to produce some copies of
documents at Ex. U-8 and U-9. Both the applications are partly allowed by my Ld. Predecessor by orders dated
13/03/2019 and 02/03/2023. But first party failed to produce those documents. Surprisingly, the second party filed
application at Ex. U-11 for permission to lead secondary evidence before the Court. The said application was
allowed and second party is permitted to lead secondary evidence. Therefore, on behalf of second party filed list of
documents at Ex. U-11 and at Ex. U-14 copy of attendance register for the period 09/03/2014 to 18/06/2014 does
not bear name of employer or signature of any concerned supervisor/manager or authorized officer. At Ex. U-15
the second party himself to file document showing that handing over/taking over of Solapur Air Port of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India in pursuance to G. R. Dated 04/12/2012 the first party
was transferred to Air Port Authority of India in the year 2012.
Most surprising the document which is filed
by the second party by way secondary evidence at Ex. U-16, it is the photocopy of attendance register showing
muster was kept by Union Steel First Party No. 6 for the period August-2008 to February-2015 at Ex. U-17 is
another attendance register for the period 02/02/2015 to 31/12/2015 which does not bear name of employer,
signature of any manager or authorized officer nor filed on record any document vouchers or bank statement
showing that the second party was paid directly by first party No. 1 to 4 whereas his claim of reinstatement of
continuity of service and back wages against first party No. 1 to 4. The documents which are placed on record are
most clearly showing that the second party was in the employment of Union Steel Contractor first party No. 6 since
2008. Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against first party No. 1 to 5. Two corroborate documents his
cross-examination below Ex. UW-1 is more than sufficient to establish the relationship between the second party
and first party No. 1 to 4 those documents loudly speaking that the second party was in the employment through
contractor that is first party No. 6 to 8.
3682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
48.
It should not be ignored that the first party No. 2 to 4 filed the copy of annual maintenance contract (Civil)
2015-2016 for operational area at Solapur Air Port Page No. 1 to 154 at Ex. C-17. The contract agreement dated
20/10/2015 signed between the Air Port Authority of India and M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions for supplying
manpower to first party No. 1 to 4. Considering all these documents mainly in the light of oral admissions given by
the second party in his cross-examination shows that he was never directly appointed by first party No. 1 to 4 nor
first party No. 5 at any point of time. Whereas documents himself placed on record showing that he was employed
through contractor namely Union Steel since 2008. Therefore, he was employee of contractor and not of first party
No. 1 to 4 as principal employer. These documents shows that there is no relationship between the second party
and first party No. 1 to 5 at any point of time.
49.
It is needless to mention here that in view of the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor and evidence led by
the second party it is admitted position that the second party was well aware that he was appointed through
contractor. However, he was contended that the said contract was sham and bogus and camouflage. As per Section
10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, there was no declaration regarding sham and
bogus contract unless and until it is declared by the appropriate authority that the said contract was sham and
bogus, the second party cannot claim any benefits as mentioned in his prayer clause of Statement of Claim against
first party No. 1 to 5. The entire burden was cast upon second party to establish there is employer-employee
relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4 and 5. However, though the burden cast upon second
party but he miserably failed to file on record cogent documentary evidence such as his appointment order, wages
paid by the first party No. 1 to 4 & 5 or he was issued any notice in his tenure of employment or any such
document which establishes the relationship between the first party No. 1 to 5 but the most relevant document
material are missing from the record.
50.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nilgiri (cited supra) where it is observed that unless it is proved by an appointment letter, salary etc. etc., it cannot
be said that there is any employer-employee relationship, moreover, unless there is reference to whether the
contract between the first party No. 1 and others regarding contract is sham and bogus, Tribunal cannot be
decided without referring such type of dispute to the Tribunal. On the contrary from the record first party No. 6 to
8 since beginning are the contractors.
51.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of International Air Port Authority of India Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers’ Union 2009 (123) FLR. has laid down that the Tribunal has to comply tests like
who pays the salary, who has power to remove/dismiss from service, or to initiate disciplinary action. In short who
has direct control and supervision over employees to decide whether the contract is nominal or only on paper. It is
further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unless there is invocation under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Tribunal cannot direct the principal employer to absorb or regularize services of the
contract labour. It is also held that the supervision and control of principal employer will not be only test to hold
that they are direct employees of the principal employer.
52.
On behalf of first party No. 5 so many observations are relied to show that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the first party and first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. In all the observations in sum and
substance are similar as discussed above. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is claim of the second party that he
was terminated on 28/12/2015 by the first party No. 1 to 4. In fact it is brought on record that he was contract
labour. Her termination appears to be non renewal of contract with first party No. 1 to 5. Therefore, termination
does not constituted retrenchment also. Therefore, he is not entitled to get relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service and to regularize in the employment since 2009 against first party No. 1 to 5. In absence of any employer-
employee relationship though the second party examined himself but failed to establish that there is relationship of
employer-employee between first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. Therefore, claim of reinstatement and back
wages against first party no. 1 to 5 required to be answered in negative.
As second party failed to prove the relationship between himself and first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, issue
is required to be answered in the negative.
53.
The another issue is in respect of entitlement of relief of second party. It is the case of the first party No. 1
to 4 since beginning that the first party No. 6 to 8 appointed the second party paid the salary, supervise and
manage his services, he was allotted work in different places other than first party. It is also contention that the
first party No. 6 to 8 he received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 and the first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal
employer of the second party. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demand of second
party and they are duty bound to comply all the statutory provisions of Labour Laws, Standing Orders, Circulars
related with second party’s employment.
54.
During the course of argument Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 fairly submitted that
during crucial period of termination of second party was not paid salary for the month of November and
December-2015. The contract with first party No. 1 to 4 came to an end on 31/12/2015 due to non renewal of
contract they are unable to provide employment to second party. However, they are ready to pay unpaid wages of
two months. It is pertinent to note here that though the second party in his statement of claim contended that work
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3683
which he was performed still in existence at first party No. 1 to 4. However, to show this fact neither filed any
document nor examined any independent witness to establish that the work is available. Mere allegations in the
Statement of Claim are not sufficient to hold that the work is available.
55.
At the same time it should not be ignored that admittedly since 2008 till 20/12/2015 he was working as
sweeping, cleaning and due to non renewal of contract, he was terminated without issuing notice by first party No.
6 to 8. At the most, he is entitled to get two months salary and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments that if reinstatement is not possible then concerned employee should be given lump-sum compensation
considering his 8 years service through contractor, notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other legal dues as
per applicable Law to the second party by first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- to second party, it will be met the ends of justice and no prejudice will be caused either to first party No.
6 to 8 or to the second party.
56.
Therefore, in this angle of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case I come to conclusion that
second party is entitled to get lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final of his claim. Therefore,
issue regarding entitlement should required to be answered in partly in affirmative and I answer the same in partly
in affirmative. I find much substance in the statement made on behalf first party No. 1 to 4 and first party No. 5,
the observations relied by the first parties are helpful to decide the issue of contract labour by this Tribunal.
Though on behalf of second party some observations are relied but they are not helpful to the facts and
circumstances of the present case in hand. With due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court I mentioned here that
the observations relied by the second party are not helpful to grant relief claimed by him.
57.
Therefore, reference needs to be answered partly in affirmative against the first party No. 6 to 8 only. With
this, I proceed to pass following award:-
AWARD
1)
Reference (IT) No. 06/2017 is answered partly in affirmative against first party No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
First Party No. 6 to 8 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to second party within period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of award.
3)
No order as to costs.
4)
Copies of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.
5)
Proceedings is closed.
Date: 06-12-2025
M. R. KUMBHAR, Presiding Officer
amj/-
Assistant Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Solapur.
Argued on: 05/12/2025
Dictated on: 05 & 06/12/2025
Transcribed on: 08, 09 & 10/12/2025
Checked & Signed on: 11/12/2025
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 711.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a37/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y– 12012/404/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 711.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 37/2001) 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-12012/404/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
3684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 6th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 37/2001
Between:
Sri Pedda Obanna,
Chinnamachupalli,
Chennoor-510001,
Distt. Cuddapah (A.P).
… Petitioner
And
The Dy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
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-12012/404/2000-IR(B.I) dated
08.06.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to 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 Sri Pitti Pedda Obanna, Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 37/2001 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
Respondent s, 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,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3685
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 he joined the service of the Respondent Bank at Cuddapah main branch as a messenger on 13.07.1989 and he
worked upto 10.07.1991 for 132 days. The Petitioner was called for an interview and also to produce the certificates
by a letter dt. 7.08.1992 for absorption as a regular employee. The Petitioner was selected and his name was included
in the panel at Sl.No.529. Therafter the Petitioner was provided with work from May, 1993 to March 1997 for 352
days as a messenger at Cuddapah main branch. Thereby he worked for about 8 years. 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‖.
3686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st
settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd
settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement
(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all
these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the
list of the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be
regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under
the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options
elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was
made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7.
Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated
16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were
specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted
to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel
and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is
specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement
and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High
court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It
also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High
Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the
directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of
the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a
settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid
upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the
basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide
impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable
expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the
settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said
action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court
and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General
Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondent s 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as
illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as
violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to
absorb them in service.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3687
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 Respondent s 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
Respondent s 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
3688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the
settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was
extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that
while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily
wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3689
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five
settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of
the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the
terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms
agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the
bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made
clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the
panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the
Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of
the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right
under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against
the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to
be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also 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:-
3690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex. W1 is the Caste Certificate. Further Ex. W2 is the Marks memo . Ex. W3 is the Service Certificate dated
07.08.1992. Ex. W4 is the interview letter. Ex. W5 is the Panel list. Ex. W6 is the Service Certificate 26.08.1997.
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.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for
Petitioner 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, Kamalapuram branch in terminating the services of
Workman Sri P. Pedda Obanna, 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3691
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.
“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.
3692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3693
(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."
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.”
3694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service 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 did not undergo the regular process of selection before my
engagement as temporary Messenger in the branch. It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year, in my
entire service in the bank in any branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3695
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
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
3696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Respondent s 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 Respondent s 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 Respondent s 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 Respondent s, 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 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3697
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
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
3698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3699
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
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 Pitti Pedda Obanna, 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 6th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P.Pedda Obanna
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photocopy of Caste Certificate
Ex.W2: Photocopy of Marks memo
Ex.W3: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 07.08.1992
Ex.W4: Photocopy of Absorption letter
Ex.W5: Photocopy of Panel list
Ex. W6: Photocopy of Service Certificate 26.08.1997
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 712.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार सेंरल एजवएिन जमजनस्ट्री; एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मिाराष्ट्र एयरृोटव डेवलृमेंट अ ॉररटी; मेससव
श्रीकृ्ि कंस्ट्रक्िंस; मेससव यूजनयन स्ट्टील; श्री प्रमोि टी. कुलाल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती जमनाक्षी
ित्तात्रेय ृवार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिम औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 07/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
17.04.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-45]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
3700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 07/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Central Aviation
Ministry; Airport Authority of India; Maharashtra Airport Development Authority; M/s. Shrikrishna
Constructions; M/s. Union Steel; Mr. Pramod T. Kulal and Smt. Minakshi Dattatraya Pawar which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.04.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-45]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SOLAPUR
Presided Over by M. R. Kumbhar, Presiding Officer
Reference (IT) No. 07/2017
Exhibit No.:
Dispute between:-
1)
Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
R/o. Govt. of India, New Delhi, Delhi
2)
Manager, Airport Authority of India,
R/o. A. N. Union Office, Port Cabin, New Airport
Colony, Parshiwada, Sahara-Andheri Road,
Mumbai – 400 009.
3)
Airport Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
4)
Office Incharge, Airport Authority of India,
Solapur Airport, Solapur – 413 224.
5)
Maharashtra Airport Development Authority,
R/o. World Trade Centre, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai.
6)
M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions,
R/o. Block No. A/505, Yashraj, Bhekrao Nagar,
S. 177, Phursungi, Pune – 412 308.
7)
M/s. Union Steel,
R/o. B-Wing, 11 Floor, Flat No. 206,
Varsha Adarsha Co-op. Housing Society,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) Mumbai – 400 024.
8)
Mr. Pramod T. Kulal,
R/o. 4-A, Aaji Sainik Nagar, Vijapur Road,
Solapur.
… First Parties
And:-
Smt. Minakshi Dattatraya Pawar
Age: 40 Years; Occupation : Nil;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3701
R/o. Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Hotigi Road,
Solapur
… Second Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances:-
Advocate for First Parties No.1 To 4 :- Mr. S. S. Chiwari & S.S. Bendre
Advocate for First Party No. 5
:- Mr. V. B. Marathe
Advocate for First Party No. 6
:- Mr. G. H. Kulkarni
Advocate for First Party No. 7
:- Mr. B. T. Jadhav
Advocate for First Party No. 8
:- Mr. L. A. Gawali
Advocate for Second Party
:- Mr. V. R. Deshpande
AWARD
(Delivered on:- 06/12/2025)
1.
As per certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune to second Party Smt. Minakshi
Dattatraya Pawar as per Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the I. D. Act‘ for
brevity). After completion of mandatory 45 days of filing his dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore,
approached this Tribunal and directly filed her Statement of Claim under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act
for adjudication on 07/07/2017 in respect of dispute relating to reinstatement with full back wages and continue
service with status and benefits of permanency or regularization at Solapur Air Port.
2.
The Second Party has filed her Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and contended that she was working with Air
Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port from the year 2008-09 as Sweeper-cum-Labour with
First Party. The Secretary Central Aviation Ministry Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has
managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air Port Authority since its inception. The Second Party further
contended that initially she was appointed by and through Maharashtra Air Port Development Corporation (In short M
A D C) for performing sweeping, cleaning and other manual work at Solapur Air Port. She was being paid Rs. 4,000/-
to 5,000/- by M A D C. The area of Solapur Air Port is 365 Acre. Hence, the work of cleaning and sweeping was of
big nature and is required to be done on day to day basis. Beside the office control tower, other office rooms, godown,
entrance road, internal roads were also required to be clean and maintain properly and for that purpose services of
second party were required on day to day basis.
3.
She further contended that the work of plantation and maintenance of trees, watering to existing plants and
greenery was also done by the second party on daily basis. She used to clean bath-rooms, urinals, etc. etc. on daily
basis. Above work was performing as per direction and instruction of first party No. 3 and 4. According to second
party all above work is of perennial in nature and is of non ending in nature. All the works as stated above are still in
existence and will continue till existence of Air Port at Solapur.
4.
The second party further contended that M A D C i. e. First Party No. 5 was looking after and has total
control over the Solapur Air Port after 2012. The Solapur Air Port was under the control of Air Port In-charge and
office In-charge of Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4 at the time of change of control and at the time of
taking charge, First Party No. 3 and 4, they assured the second party that she will be made permanent and will be
giving pay, Salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employee. Therefore, she kept bonafide belief
towards assurance and continued her above mentioned work at Solapur Air Port under their control. She further
adhere that in the year 2014 second party was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air
Port Solapur that she will be paid Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month wages. However, she did not receive such amount
of wages and she was never given benefit of permanency though she was working continuously from the year 2008-
09. The wages paid to second party were far less than the statutory rate of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the first party
has committed breach of the statutory provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
Thereafter she was given Identity Card being the employee of the Air Port Authority. She specifically
contended that the attendance was to be marked and recorded by the Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge Solapur
Air Port. Both were having supervisory and managerial control over the second party. As an eye wash and camouflage
services the employees were shown as contract labourer through first parties No. 6, 7 and 8. The said trick was used
as weapon to give go-by or by-pass to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights of the second party.
Than even after the changes the so called labour contractors on paper. The second party was continued on her work as
per earlier system method and was doing some work as before.
5.
According to second party the work of daily nature/permanent nature cannot be allotted to labour contractor
and only work of temporary and continue nature can be allotted to labour contractor. The daily supervision and
control was of first parties No. 3 and 4. The paper work shown of first party to engage second party through labour
3702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contractor was not legal, proper and bonafide. Rather the said paper work was done only with intention to deny
legitimate rights including permanency regularization of second party.
6.
The second party further contended that one Mr. Sajjan Nichal who was working as Manager has instructed
the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C. policy otherwise threatened to terminate their services. So the
second party along with other co-workers took the L. I. C. policy and also becoming members of Trade Unions.
Further in the month of December-2015 the second party and other co-workers were purposely not paid monthly
wages and during that period second party and other co-workers were forced to sign below agreement/affidavit/
document/contract prepared by them, which was not read over by the second party in their language known to them.
The second party and other co-workers were put under tremendous pressure and was subjected to harassing for
signing said agreement but second party remain firm in signing the said arbitrary, ex-party and illegal agreement.
Therefore, she was not paid wages of November and December-2015. Therefore, second party and other co-workers
were not allowed to sign the muster-roll from December-2015 onward. They refused to provide employment to
second party.
7.
According to the second party she was worked since 2008 to December-2015 with Solapur Air Port without
any break. The work performing by her is of perennial in nature and work is still in existence. The first party refused
to give employment only to deprive legitimate right of permanency and regularization.
8.
The second party lastly contended that she has completed more than 240 days service in each and every year
with Solapur Air Port who is the principal employer of the second party. Also first party No. 1-4 are principal
employer of the second party. However, the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provision and
procedure of Law as well as due process of Law. Even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1
to 4 by violating provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act as well as Section 4(c) of Standing Orders and relevant
circulars, regulations etc. etc. At the time of termination the first party has not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay,
nor paid compensation before terminating service. The termination of second party is by way of unfair labour
practices and sole intention is to deprive all benefits of permanency and regularization by violating principles of
natural justice, equity and fair play. The first party have adopted the forbidden policy of hire and fire. Therefore, the
second party issued legal notice dated 07/01/2016 through their advocate. However, the first party have given false
and contrary as well as evasive reply to it. Hence, the second party has filed Complaint (ULP) No. 35/2016 in
Industrial Court, Solapur. However, the said Court returned the complaint to second party with liberty to approach
appropriate authority/or court. Hence, the second party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter
submitted her case for conciliation before Conciliation Officer and Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central),
Pune.
The Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central), Pune has issued certificate dated
09/12/2016 as provided under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the second party approached this Court and filed
her statement of claim in detail and prayed that the first party be directed to reinstate the second party at Solapur Air
Port from 28/12/2015 with full back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits and to grant status
and benefit of permanency regularization at Solapur Air Port from the date of completion of 240 days service at first
instance from 2009 with difference in wages and allowances along with 18% interest thereon and for unpaid salary of
month of November, December-2015 with 18% interest thereon till its actual realization.
9.
After submitting the statement of claim second party my Ld. Predecessor issued notice to all the first parties
No. 1 to 8. In response to that Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate with Shri. S. S. Bendre, Ld. Advocate appeared
through First Parties No. 1 to 4 and filed detailed Written Statement at Ex. C-5 on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V.
B. Marthe, Ld. Advocate put his appearance and filed Say and Written Statement at Ex. CA-4. Shri. G. H. Kulkarni,
Ld. Advocate on behalf of first party No. 6, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. L. A.
Gawali, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 8 though put their appearance but failed to file their Written Statement.
Therefore, my Ld. Predecessor by an order dated 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against first party
No. 6 to 8.
10.
The first party No. 1 to 4 by filing their Written Statement at Ex. C-5 denied all the contentions, averments
and statements made in the statement of claim. It is specific case of the first party No. 1 to 4 that second party was
worked with Solapur Air Port are not true and correct. According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was
appointed by contractors that is first party No. 6 to 8. That the contents in respect of control, supervision by Solapur
Air Port since inception are not true and correct. Accordingly, the first party No. 3 was having supervisory control
over the Solapur Air since December-2012. The appointment of second party are denied specifically. The first party
No. 1 to 4 never used to give direction or any instruction for work. However, it is admitted that in respect of control
over the Solapur Air Port after 2012 is with Air Port Authority of India. That the first party No. 1 to 4 never assured
about permanency and regularization or other consequential benefits to the second party because second party was
never under the control of first party No. 1 to 4. The first party No. 1 to 4 never promised to pay an amount of Rs. 8-9
thousands per month towards wages. Then first party No. 1 to 4 never paid any wages to second party. Therefore,
committing any breach of minimum wages does not arise. First party No. 1 to 4 have never issued any identity card to
the second party being an employee of Air Port Authority of India and or of Air Port In-charge never marked
attendance nor kept supervision over the second party.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3703
11.
According to first party No. 1 to 4 the second party was appointed by various contractors and working with
various contractors. The second party was working under direct control of various contractors that is first party No. 6
to 8 such as Union Steels, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Constructions. The first party No. 1 to 4 have never maintained
muster-roll for attendance and for work performance of second party neither assured at any time regarding
permanency as alleged in Statement of Claim. Moreover, as per contention of Statement of Claim first party No. 1 to 4
are not concerned with present dispute raised by the second party which is vague in nature.
12.
The entire contentions of statement of claim was denied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and contended that they
have not done any act such as termination, retrenchment or any act with intend to deprive legitimate benefit of
permanency or regularization of second party as the first party No. 1 to 4 never appointed the second party. Therefore,
question of illegal termination and violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act at all not arise as alleged against him.
13.
The first party No. 1 to 4 lastly contended that Solapur Air Port was under the control and supervision of M.
A. D. C. till December 2012. Thereafter Air Port is under the control of Air Port Authority of India that is first party
No. 1 to 4 that the first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concern about the appointment made by M. A. D. C. during
their tenure. The first party No. 1 to 4 never appoints any labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port, Air
Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to registered contractor that is first party No. 6 and 8
namely M/s. Shrikishna Construction, Solapur and thereafter M/s. Pramod T. Kulal, Solapur. The Air Port Authority
of India has continued work on contract awarded by M. A. D. C. for operational reasons till appointment of new
contractor. It is specific contention of first party No. 1 to 4 that the second party is appointed by the contractor and
therefore, the second party is removed by the said contractor. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages,
compensation, benefits provided as per Labour Laws and Standing Orders, implement the circulars etc. etc. as the
second party was under the control as well as supervision of first party No. 6 to 8.
Therefore, their services are controlled and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. As the second party has
received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal employer of second party.
Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demands of second party and duty bound to comply all
the statutory provisions of the Labour Laws, standing Orders, Circulars relating with second party and prayed that the
claim against first party No. 1 to 4 may kindly be dismissed.
14.
The first party No. 5 in their Written Statement filed below Ex. CA-4 denied all the contents, averments and
allegations made against first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim are false, baseless. It is further denied
that the second party was working with first party No. 5 as Sweeper-cum-Labourer. Further denied that the second
party was appointed by first party No. 5 at Mumbai for performing work of sweeping and cleaning and was paying
wages of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month.
15.
The first party No. 5 also denied that the first party No. 5 was required to maintain and clean the property at
Solapur. Further denied that the first party No. 5 was to maintain work of plantation and maintenance and of watering
the existing plants to clean the bath-rooms, urinals etc. Further denied that the work is of perennial in nature and not
ending. The contentions of statement of claim are false and baseless. It is fact that the first party No. 5 was looking
after Solapur Air Port till December-2012 as regards first party No. 3 and 4. This party is not concerned with the
contents raised in Statement of Claim against them due to want of knowledge.
16.
The first party No. 5 lastly contended that they have never engaged or appointed the second party at any time
till its tenure. In fact this party used to give work of purely temporarily in nature. Therefore, contractor not only that
the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was got done on contractual basis. Therefore,
there is no employer-employee relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party at any point of time till
December-2012. There is no compliance against the first party No. 5. The contents of statement of claim at para No.
20 clearly shows that she is claiming reinstatement with full back wages from 28/12/2015. Moreover, the second party
was admitted that after December-2012, Solapur Air Port was handed over as per Government Resolution of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India. Therefore, first party No. 5 was unnecessarily made party
in this reference. The contents regarding continuous work from 2008-09 till 2010 as this first party never appointed
the second party one Mr. Sajjan Nichal had never instructed the second party and other co-workers to take L. I. C.
Policy.
In fact the second party and co-worker of contractor M/s. Union Steel and the said contractor had taken
policy of its workers which is knowing to do with Mr. Sajjan Nichal. Therefore this first party No. 5 is not liable
either to reinstate or to give back wages or any such prayers made against them. Therefore, reference against first
party No. 5 requires to be rejected and prayed to dismiss the same.
17.
The first party No. 6, 7 and 8 though appeared through Ld. Advocates, but failed to file their Written
Statement if any on record. The Ld. Advocates have participated in respective dates of proceedings. My Ld.
Predecessor below Ex. U-1 on 22/03/2018 proceeded to pass No W. S. order against these first parties.
18.
From the rival contentions and submissions made in the Statement of Claim as well as Written Statement of
first party No. 1 to 5 issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor below Ex. O-6 on 06/08/2019 and my findings to
them are as under:-
3704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1)
Whether the Second Party is entitled for the reliefs claimed in
the statement of claim?
… Partly in Affirmative
against First Party
No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
Whether the Second Party proves that there exist an employer-
employee relationship between Second Party and First Party?
… In the negative in
respect of First Party
No. 1 to 5 And
In the affirmative in
respect of First Party
No. 6 to 8
3)
What Award?
… As per final Award.
REASONS
19.
Second Party in respect of their contention raised in Statement of Claim have filed some copies of
documents with List Ex. U-4 comprising of demand notice dated 16/07/2016 given by second party and certificate
dated 09/12/2016 issued by Conciliation Officer, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune. Second party also
filed additional documents along with list Ex. U-11 comprising of copy of attendance register regarding second
party(Exh.U-14), charge report of handing over/taking over charge form Solapur Airport Government of Maharashtra
to Airports Authority of India (Exh. U-15), copy of muster roll maintained by Union Steel (Exh. U-16), copy of
attendance register regarding second party (Exh. U-17) and copy of legal notice issued by second party
through Adv. Kashid (Exh. U-18) and therefore, second party also filed some documents along with list Ex. U-20
comprising of original entry permit given to second party by Incharge Solapur Air Port and photocopy of attendance
register showing attendance of second party with Solapur Air Port Incharge for the month of September-2008 (Exh.
U-21). On the contrary the first party No. 2 to 4 have also filed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-17
comprising of copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (civil) 2015-16 for operational Area at Soalpur Airport and on
behalf of first party No. 5 have placed some copies of documents with list Ex. C-13 comprising of copy of letter dated
12/07/2013, copy of letter dated 07/10/2013, copy of letter dated 31/12/2013, copy of letter dated 30/01/2013, copy of
letter dated 26/05/2013, copy of letter dated 08/04/2013, copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2013,
statement of payment and copy of agreement with Pramod Kulal dated 28/10/2014. The first party No. 6 to 8 neither
filed Written Statement nor produced any document on record.
20.
The second party have filed application at Ex. U-8 for production of documents which was partly allowed by
my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13/08/2019 and directed to produce the documents called for. Again second
party filed another application for production of documents at Ex. U-9 which was partly allowed vide order dated
02/03/2023. Thereafter second party have again filed application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
below Ex. U-10, U-12. Both applications were allowed vide Order dated 09/02/2024.
21.
The second party to prove her claim made in the Statement of Claim have examined herself at Ex. UW-1 by
filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. She was duly cross-examined by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 5
respectively but no cross order passed against the first party No. 6 to 8. Thereafter on behalf of second party filed
evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22. On the contrary the first party No. 1 to 4, 5 and 6 to 8 have not led any oral
evidence before this tribunal.
22.
Conciliation officer as per direction of this tribunal produced copies of documents with list Ex. C-20 that is
conciliation proceedings given by Conciliation officer And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune(containing
102 pages) on 23/8/2024.
Heard Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate for second party and Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with
Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate for first party No. 5, Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 and Shri. G. H.
Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 and on behalf of first party No. 8 Shri. L. A. Gawali chose remained
absent after filing their vakalatnamas. In addition to this Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate filed Written Synopsis
of argument at Ex. U-24 with list of case-laws. On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Bendre,
Ld. Advocate also placed on record Written Synopsis of argument at Ex. C-23 with list of citations. On the contrary
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3705
on behalf of first party No. 5 Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate with Shri. G. G. Joshi, Advocate filed notes of
argument at Ex. CA-7 with list of citations. Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 submitted and
admitted that the second party was in the employment of first party No. 6 to 8 they are contractors. Their contract was
terminated at the end of December-2015. Due to non renewal of contract the services of second party was terminated
and first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay two months unpaid salary only and prayed to pass appropriate order.
23.
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate Shri. V. R. Deshpande for second party submitted in detail
as per the contentions of statement of claim. With the help of oral as well as documentary evidence, he further
submitted that the second party was not paid wages of November and December-2015 because the second party and
other co-workers have refused to sign agreement. Therefore, they were not allowed to sign muster roll since
December-2015 onward and also refused to provide employment since then. He further submitted that the second
party and other co-workers have worked from 2008 with Solapur Air Port till end of December-2015 without any
break. He further submitted that the work performed by the second party is of perennial in nature and the said work is
still in existence. However, for no reason from December-2015 the first party have refused to give employment to
second party with intention to deprive second party from their legitimate benefits of permanency.
24.
He further strongly submitted that the second party has completed more than 240 days of service in each and
every year with Solapur Air Port Authority that is first party No. 2 to 4. Solapur Air Port who is the principal
employer of the second party. So also first party No. 1 to 4 are principal employer of the second party. He then
submitted that the first party was terminated/retrenched without following any provisions of Law and procedure of
Law and deprived the benefit of permanency even after rendering long and continue service with first party No. 1 to
4. Solapur Air Port authority have failed to observe the provision of Section 25-F and provisions of Section 4(c) of the
Standing Orders relevant circulars as well as Resolutions passed from time to time. He put his great emphasis on the
issue of termination and submitted that the first party have not issued any notice, nor paid notice pay, compensation
before terminating services of the second party. Termination of second party is hastily, abruptly and by engaging into
unfair labour practices with sole intention to deprive from benefit of permanency. Therefore, termination is illegal and
not bonafide. The first party also violated principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. They have adopted
forbidden policy of hire and fire.
25.
Then he invited my attention towards legal notice dated 07/01/2016 issued through their advocate to which
second party received false and contrary and evasive reply then he submitted that the second party and other co-
workers have filed complaint of unfair labour practices bearing ULP No. 35/2016 before this Court. However, the
Industrial Court, Solapur returned the said complaint with liberty to approach appropriate forum. Therefore, second
party issued notice under Section 2A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter submitted case for conciliation with Regional
Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune and after filing application to implement first party No. 6 to 8 they were
made parties to the proceedings. He further submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune had
issued certificate dated 09/12/2016 as per Section 2A of the I. D. Act to file this reference before this Tribunal.
Therefore, reference made by the second party is maintainable.
26.
Then he invited my attention towards the order below Ex. U-8 and U-9 and submitted that though as per
direction of this Tribunal regarding muster-roll, payment register, labour contract agreements, licence etc. etc., but
first party failed to produce the same. Then he invited my attention towards oral evidence of the second party at Ex.
UW-1 and put his great emphasis on the list of document at Ex. U-11 and submitted that the second party is workman
and workers does not have any custody of original documents. Therefore, second party has filed documents and call
for the said documents from the custody of first party but in spite of directions to produce by this Tribunal first party
have not produced documents. Then he invited my attention towards order below Ex. U-12 and submitted as per the
permission of this Tribunal. The second party produced some copies of documents along with list Ex. U-12 which is
at Ex. U-14 to U-18 i. e. copies of muster rolls, documents of handling over the Air Port Management, legal notice
etc.. Those are required to be read in evidence. Then filed some more copies of documents with list Ex. U-20 and U-
21 respectively. He then submitted that the second party as proved his case that the termination of service from
28/12/2015 is illegal and act of unfair labour practices. Therefore, second party is entitled for the permanency along
with consequential benefits and from the month of January 2009. According to Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Ld. Advocate
oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of second party have gone unchallenged, unrebutted or uncontroverted.
Therefore, reference of second party is required to be allowed and prayed to allow the same.
27.
He lastly submitted that the first party has not lead its own oral/documentary evidence to prove their defense,
objection and contentions in Written Statement. First parties have neither produced any document in their custody
even after directions from this Tribunal nor producing their own evidence. So also first party No. 6 to 8 have also not
lead their own evidence nor entered into witness box. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the first
party. He further submitted that as per settled Law, pleadings and written statement is not evidence. The first party
have taken adjournments but failed to file their own evidence. Therefore, defense cannot be liable to be considered for
want of their evidence and prayed to allow reference with all prayers made therein.
28.
He relied upon the following citations:-
i) Iswar Bhai C Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 1341)
3706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ii) Reportable judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 20/12/2024
and relied upon observations at para No. 27 and 28 which reads as -
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary
litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,
thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the
High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith. However, the
appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for
but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-
retiral benefits.
iii)
Then he relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court between – The Mysore Electrical
Industries Ltd. Vs. Engineering And General Workers Union decided on 09/10/2023 in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2023
(L-RES).
iv) Then he relied upon observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 (Shripal &
Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad) and relied upon observations in para No. 15 which reads as under:-
15.
It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer‘s
failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing
municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the
absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique
of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of
India 3 in the following paragraphs:
―22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits,
job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining
labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear
an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy
but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to
address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often labeled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such mis-classification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of
constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for
skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary
employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3707
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as
pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.‖
v)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajranagar
Coal Mines Workers’ Union in Civil Appeal No. 4092-4093/2024 relied upon observations at para No. 22 and 23
which reads as under:-
―22. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to a
conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated previously, we
do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However, as the case was argued
at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals. What we have referred to here in-
above are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court. In view of the concurrent findings
of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of work, continuous working of the workmen, we
are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and
therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages‖.
vi)
Then he relied upon observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer
I/R to Mangmat. of FCI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2417 – 2418 of 2014 and relied upon observations at para No. 34.
―34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when
there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give
direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-hoc/temporary
worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would
be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize such a person, only on the
basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may amount to backdoor entry into the
service which is an anathema to Art. 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when
the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment
Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself
under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court
are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-
regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases
and would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the
equality by upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision‖.
vii) He lastly relied upon the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court between the Air India Statutory corporation
Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. decided on 06/12/1996, Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-34 of 1996 and prayed
to allow the reference of section party with all prayers made therein.
29.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 Shri. S. S. Chiwari, Ld. Advocate submitted in detail as per
the written statement filed on record. He further submitted that the second party prepared the present reference against
stoppage of their work by the contractor and claiming the benefit of permanency and regularization at Solapur Air
Port from the completion of their 240 days of their service at first instance i. e. December 2009 and also claimed
difference of that first wages along with 18% p. a. interest therein. He invited my attention towards the Written
Statement filed on record and contention therein and submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 mainly contended that
the reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of the back door entry who come in the employment by using back
door entry must go through back door. He then submitted that Solapur Air Port Authority was under the control and
supervision of M. A. D. C. first party No. 5 till December-2012 and thereafter under control of Air Port Authority of
India that is first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 4 is not having any concerned about appointment
made by M. A. D. C. during their tenure. He put his great emphasis on the document filed by the second party and
submitted that the first party No. 1 to 4 never appoint any Labour for the routine work of maintenance of Air Port then
he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India awarded contract of civil maintenance to the registered contractor
that is first party No. 6 to 8. The second party was appointed by the contractor and therefore, second party is removed
by the said contractor. Therefore, the first party No. 6 to 8 are liable for wages, compensation, benefits as per the
provisions of Labour Laws.
30.
Then he submitted that the second party was under the control of the first party No. 6 to 8 contractor at
relevant time. Therefore, second party was working for the contractor. Moreover, work of second party was controlled
and supervised by the first party No. 6 to 8. All these facts were admitted by the second party in their cross-
examination.
3708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.
He lastly submitted that the second party was never appointed by the first party No. 1 to 4 in the year 2009
whereas they were appointed by contractor namely Union Steel, P. T. Kulal and Shrikrishna Construction i. e. first
party No. 6 to 8 for day to day work of cleaning and maintenance work at Solapur Air Port. The said fact is admitted
by the second party in their cross-examination. Therefore, the employer for second party is of first party No. 6 to 8.
The second party was never controlled nor paid by the M. A. D. C. The demand vouchers were prepared and
maintained by the M. A. D. C. Their work at Solapur Air Port was stopped by the first party No. 6 to 8 that is
contractor. The attendance register produced on record, it does not bear signature and office seal of Air Port Authority
of India nor appeared seal of Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted that the Air Port Authority of India never
published any advertisement for appointment or never initiated procedure for recruitment of second party nor issued
any identity card as claimed by the second party. Therefore, the present reference is not tenable and maintainable as
per Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. He invited my attention towards definition of retrenchment and
submitted that the termination of workman service due to non renewal of fixed term of contract or the termination of
such contract as per its term does not constitute retrenchment. He further submitted that the service contract of first
party No. 6 to 8 was completed, its tenure and same was not continued and hence, the work allotted through
contractor to second party come to an end. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between first party
No. 1 to 4 and second party nor there is no any appointment nor made any payment nor made any supervision or
control. Therefore, question of violation of Section 25-F and illegal termination does not arise and also question of
payment of compensation does not arise and prayed to reject reference of second party.
32.
He further adhere that the second party can approach directly to the M. A. D. C. i. e. first party No. 5 as
initial period of 240 days service was completed prior to December 2012 at Solapur Air Port. Therefore, the present
reference at all not tenable and maintainable against first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the same.
33.
He relied upon various observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court in which Ex.
C-23 page (No. 7 A) State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293 wherein it is held that, ―Appointment –
Nature of appointment: There is estoppel against challenging nature of appointment once having duly accepted the
same: Having accepted contractual appointment, respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their
appointment.
B]
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 01 wherein in para No. 34 and 36 it is held that -
34. …………..
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with
the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the
same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes
to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis,
the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he
would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless
the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment'
in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould
the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to
continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden
of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
36.
While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent,
courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual
in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be
true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3709
employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would
not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who
has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will
be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a
contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power,
that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or
temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be
getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After
all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept
a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context
that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned
knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The
claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be
considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making
regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been
working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the
nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the
procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of
constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
C]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal and others (2011) SCC 429 wherein in para No. 8 of the said judgment it
is held that -
8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in
pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had
been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16
should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an
employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of
compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process,
can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be `litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years,
let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not
working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing
that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the
cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or
contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for
framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
part time temporary employees.
(v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
D]
State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247
E]
Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 300
F]
K. K. Suresh V. Food Corpn. Of India (2018) 17 SCC 641
G]
Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 1417
H]
Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Anr. AIR 2014 SC 1848
3710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001 SC
3527
J]
Jt. Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors. [2025 (185) FLR
864 SC]
And prayed that observations relied by the first party No. 1 to 4 and the disputed question therein
is similar to that of the dispute raised by the second party in present case in hand. Therefore, observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court are helpful to the case of the first party No. 1 to 4 and prayed to reject the claim of second
party against First Party No. 1 to 4.
34.
On the contrary Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 5 vehemently submitted that the
present reference is referred by the Regional Commissioner of Labour (Central) Pune by its certificate dated
09/12/2016 which is placed on record for determination of dispute between parties. The second party raised
demand on 01/07/2016 for their reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages from
completion of 240 days in service. He read over certificate issued by Regional Commissioner (Central) Pune and
submitted that the second party raised dispute under Section 2A of the I. D. Act in regarding termination from
service by the Air Port Authority of India. Then he submitted certificate was issued as mandatory of completion of
45 days of filing/raising dispute by second party before Conciliation Officer as provided under the I. D. Act then he
read over Statement of Claim at Ex. U-1 and Written Statement filed on record at Ex. CA-4.
35.
He put his great emphasis on the issue that there was no employer-employee relationship between
first party No. 5 and second party. He further submitted that first party No. 5 used to give work purely temporary in
nature through contractor not only that the said work was not perennial in nature and as such the said work was
got done on contract basis. In the present reference contractors are made parties as first party No. 6 to 8. Therefore,
it is clear that the second party is admitting that she was appointing by and through contractor. Her claim if any is
against first party No. 6 to 8 then he invited my attention towards issues at Ex. O-7 and submitted that the second
party miserably failed to prove issues framed by this Tribunal.
36.
He lastly submitted that the second party adduced her oral evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief at Ex. UW-1 also filed copies of attendance register at Ex. U-14 for the period from March-
2014 to June-2014 which appears no seal and signature at Ex. U-15 letter of handing over Solapur Air Port from
Government of Maharashtra to the Air Port Authority of India dated 17/12/2012 at Ex. U-16. Muster Roll of Union
Steel i. e. First Party No. 7 for the period August 2008 to February 2015 and lastly at Ex. U-17 attendance register
for the period 02/02/2015 to 29/12/2015 which also not appears signature or stamp. All these documents are self
explanatory to establish his relationship of the employer-employee between first party No. 6 to 8 and second party.
First Party No. 5 unnecessarily made party in the present reference on the point of mis-joinder of necessary party,
reference against first party No. 5 is required to be rejected and prayed to reject the same.
37.
Then he submitted that it is well settled Law that unless the employer-employee relationship between
contract labour i. e. second party and the first party No. 5 is proved the claim of second party is not maintainable.
The burden to prove the relationship is obviously on the second party and hence, second party miserably failed to
bring on record any documentary evidence regarding their appointment orders, wages paid and supervision and
controlled by the employer. Therefore, the second party failed to prove that there existence any employer-employee
relationship between first party No. 5 and the second party and prayed that to reject the claim of second party
against first party No. 5.
38.
He relied upon the observations in -
i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (3) SCC 514
“wherein it is held that, “Employment of the workmen for doing a particular piece of work is at the instance of the
producer or the merchants on an ad hoc basis or job to job basis and, thus, the same may not lead to the conclusion
that relationship of employer and employee has came into being. ….”
ii)
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Taj Sats Air Caterers Ltd. And Another,
reported in 2019 (161) FLR 109 (Bombay High Court).
iii)
Rajesh Shah Vs. Their Workmen, United Workers Association & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) MhL. J. 943
(Bombay High Court).
iv)
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Ramchandran and Ors., reported in 2023 (1) SCC 463 (Supreme Court), and
prayed that the observations relied upon and on behalf of first party No. 5 as well as first party No. 1 to 4 also are
helpful to case of first party and prayed to pass appropriate order.
39.
On the contrary Shri. G. H. Kulkarni, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 6 submitted that in spite of given
repeated intimation first party No. 6 failed to give material instructions and documents and they have neither filed
W. S. nor led any evidence or filed any document and lastly prayed to pass appropriate order.
40.
On the contrary Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate fairly submitted that the first party No. 7 is required to
pay unpaid wages of two months from November-2015 and December 2015 and prayed to pass appropriate order.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3711
41.
On the contrary on behalf of first party No. 8 none appeared nor submitted any oral submissions
reference proceeded ex-party since beginning.
42.
Having heard oral submissions of all the Ld. Advocates. I have gone through the contents of Statement of
Claim in which second party prayed to reinstate with continuity of service and full back wages along with benefits
of permanency/regularization in service since 2009. I have gone through all the demands raised on behalf of
second party and documents placed by the second party as well as the first party and the Regional Commissioner of
Labour (Central) Pune – cum – Conciliation Officer with list Ex. C-20 then I have gone through oral evidence led
by the second party and first party No. 1 to 5. First Party No. 6 to 8 chose remained absent. They have neither filed
their W. S. nor conducted cross-examination or not filed any copies of documents. I have also gone through written
synopsis of the argument filed on behalf of second party as well as first party No. 1 to 5. I have carefully gone
through observations relied by both the parties and considered oral submissions of the Ld. Advocates.
43.
The second party approached this Tribunal as per the certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 09/12/2016. The second party in the Statement of Claim prayed
mainly to reinstate herself at Ex. UW-1 and reiterated entire contentions of Statement of claim as it is on oath.
However, in her cross-examination conducted by and on behalf of first party No. 1 to 4 by Shri. S. H. Chiwari, Ld.
Advocate some admission are brought on record. They are useful to reproduce as under:-
“शे खये की, २००८ वारी भी प्रथभत् वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय काभ वुरु केरे ल त्मालेऱी वज्जन ननचऱ शे भॎनेजय शोते.
शे खये की, काम कयामचे त्माफाफतचे आदेळ श्री. ननचऱ शे देत शोते ल केरेल्मा काभाचा ऩगाय देखीर तेच देत शोते. शे खये की, श्री
ननचऱ शे भशायाष्ट्र वलभान प्राधधकयणाचे अधधकायी शोते. शे खये की, भी काभालय रागरी त्मावाठी नोकयबयतीवाठी कुठरीशी
जाहशयात वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयणाने ल एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने हदरी नव्शती. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय प्रभोद
कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्ण कन्स्टस्रक्ळन मा ठेकेदायाॊच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी भी कयत शोते. शे खये की, वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ शे
एअयऩोर्ट ॲथाेॎरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा अधधऩत्माखारी २०१२ वाराऩावून आरे आशे. एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱ आल्मानॊतय नोकयबयतीवाठी त्माॊनी जाहशयात हदरी नव्शती ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे खये की,
एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा नोकयी देण्मावॊदबाटत भाझी भुराखत घेतरी नव्शती ल भरा कुठरेशी नेभणूक ऩत्र हदरे
नव्शते. शे म्शणणे खये की, प्रभोद कुरार, मुननमन स्र्ीर ल श्रीकृष्ट्णा कन्स्टस्रक्ळन शे ठेकेदाय वलभानतऱाशळलाम इतय हठकाणीशी
भरा काभ कयण्मावाठी ऩाठलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये आशे की, भरा नोकयीत कामभ करुन घेलू अवे २०१२ वारानॊतय एअयऩोर्ट
अथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने कधीशी वाॊधगतरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, एअयऩोर्ट ॲथॉरयर्ी ऑप इॊडिमाने भरा कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र हदरेरे
नाशी. शे खये की, भी वोराऩूय वलभानतऱालय २००८ वाराऩावून काभ कयत शोते त्मालेऱी भाझे शजेयीचे येकॉिट श्री. ननचऱ ल
उऩयोक्त नभूद ठेकेदाय शेच ठेलत शोते. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भाझी ऩगायाची यक्कभ भाझे फॉक खात्मात जभा केरी जात अवे.
भाझा दयभशा ऩगाय श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ देत शोते.
प्रश्न: तुम्शारा ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत ऩालत्मा तुम्शी दाखर कयण्माव तमाय आशात का ?
उत्तय: कुठल्माशी ऩालत्मा देण्मात मेत नव्शत्मा.
ऩगाय हदल्मावॊदबाटत कागदालय वाशी घेण्मात मेत अवे ल तो कागद श्री. ननचऱ वाशेफ त्माॊच्माकिे ठेलून घेत अवत. शे खये की,
ठेकेदाय माॊनी भरा काभ देणे फॊद केरे शोते. शे खये की, भी दाखत केरेल्मा शजेयीऩत्रकालय वाभनेलारा क्र. १ वे ४ च्मा कोणाशी
अधधका-माच्मा वह्मा ल शळक्के नाशीत तवेच ते शजेयीऩत्रके ऩिताऱणी केल्माफाफत ळेये देखीर नाशीत.
शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱाच्मा ताब्मात ३६५ एकय जभीन अवल्माचे भी खोर्े वाॊगत आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की,
वाभनेलारा क्र. १ ते ४ च्मा अधधका-मावलरुध्द चुकीची लक्तव्मे करून भी खोर्े प्रनतसाऩत्र दाखर केरे आशे. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी
की, वाभनेलारा क्र. ४ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी चुकीच्मा भागण्मा केल्मा आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी वलभानतऱालयीर काभ फॊद
झाल्मानॊतय ऩावऩोर्ट ऑपीवरा ल इतय हठकाणी काभ केरे ल इतय हठकाणी वध्मा काभ कयत आशे. शे खये की, वाभनेलारा क्र. १
ते ४ ने हदरेरे कुठरेशी ओऱखऩत्र भी अशबरेखालय दाखर केरेरे नाशी. शे खये की, वलभानतऱ प्राधधकयण केंद्रळावनाच्मा
अधधऩत्माखारी काभ कयते ल त्माॊना केंद्रळावनाच्मा वलट कामदे ल ननमभ रागू आशेत. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी खोर्ी वाष देत
आशे.
शे खये आशे की भी दाखर केरेरा ऩाव प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चे अधधकायी श्री. वज्जन ननचऱ माॊनी हदरे आशे. शे खये आशे की
तो ऩाव वलभानतऱाच्मा ऩरयवयात तात्ऩुयता प्रलेळाकरयता देण्मात आरेरा आशे. शे खये आशे की त्मा ऩावची भुदत हद.
3712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
३०/०४/२०१० ऩमंत शोती. शे खये आशे की प्रथभ ऩषकाय क्र. १ ते ४ माॊनी भरा हद. ३१/१२/२०१५ ऩमंत वलभानतऱ ऩरयवयात
प्रलेळाकरयता तवाच ऩाव हदरा शोता. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा देण्मात आरेल्मा प्रलेळाच्मा ऩावचा ओऱखऩत्र अवा चुकीचा
अथट रालुन त्माचा ओऱखऩत्र म्शणुन लाऩय करून प्रस्तुतची खोर्ी केव दाखर केरी आशे.”
Thereafter on behalf of first party No. 5 Smt. Gangishetty, Advocate holding for Shri. V. B. Marathe, Ld.
Advocate for first party No. 5 conducted cross-examination and some more vital admissions are brought on record.
Therefore, they are also useful to reproduce the same which are as under:-
“भी इमत्ता ४ थी ऩमंत शळकरी आशे. भी स्लच्छतेचे काभ कयत शोते. २०१२ वाराऩमंत भी एअयऩोर्ट ऑथॉरयर्ी ऑप
इॊडिमा माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोते. शे खये की, वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे भॎनेजय शोते ल त्माॊच्मा शाताखारी भी काभ कयत शोते. शे खये की,
वॊतोऴ कौरगी शे प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचे भॎनेजय शोते. २०१२ वारानॊतय प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा वलभानतऱाळी वॊफॊध याहशरा नाशी
ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच वलभानतऱालय काभ कयत शोते. काभाच्मा हठकाणी ठेकेदाय
मेत जात शोते ते भरा भाहशत नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, भरा ठेकेदायाकिून ऩगाय शभऱत अवे. शे खये की, २०१२ वारानॊतय
भी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेकिे काभ कयत शोते. भरा ज्मालेऱी काभालरुन काढण्मात आरे त्मालेऱी भी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४
माॊचेकिे काभारा शोते अवे भाझे म्शणणे आशे शे खये की, भाझी भागणी प्रथभ ऩष क्र. १ ते ४ माॊचेवलरुध्दच आशे. शे म्शणणे खये
नाशी की, प्रथभ ऩष क्र. ५ चा प्रस्तुत प्रकयणाळी कुठराशी वॊफॊध नाशी. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, वलभानतऱालय काभ कयण्माव
वुरुलात केल्माऩावून ते काभ फॊद कयेऩमंत भी ठेकेदायाभापटतच काभ कयत शोते.
शे खये की, भी नभूद केरेरी एर.आम.वी ऩॉशरवी भाझे लैमक्क्तक नालाने शोती. शे खये की, वज्जन ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी कुठरी
कामदेळीय कायलाई केरी नाशी. स्लत्शून वाॊगते की, त्माॊना नोर्ीव हदरी शोती. शे म्शणणे खये नाशी की, श्री ननचऱ माॊचेवलरुध्द भी
केरेरे आयोऩ ननयाधाय अवून प्रस्तुतच्मा प्रकयणाळी काशीशी एक वॊफॊध नाशी ल ते वलट आयोऩ खोर्े आशेत.”
Thereafter on behalf of second party filed evidence closing purses at Ex. U-22.
On the contrary first party No. 1 to 8 have not examined any independent witness to prove their
contentions, averments and objections raised in their Written Statement.
44.
My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex. O-5 including issue of employer-employee relationship between
the first party and second party and the entitlements of the reliefs claimed by the second party. According to second
party she was working from 2008-2009 with Air Port In-charge and office In-charge, Solapur at Solapur Air Port
as Sweeper-cum-Labourer with first party. According to second party Secretary, Central Aviation Ministry,
Government of India and Air Port Authority of India has managerial and supervisory control over the Solapur Air
Port since its inception. It is specific stand of second party that she was appointed by and through M. A. D. C. for
performing sweeping, cleaning and other managerial work at Solapur Air Port since 2008-2009 on the wages of Rs.
4,000/- to 5,000/-. She was further used to work plantation and maintenance and watering to existence plants,
greenery was also done by second party. She also used to cleaning bathrooms, urinals on daily basis. Therefore,
work done by second party was perennial in nature and not ending in nature. According to second party the said
work is still in existence at Solapur Air Port. However, second party also admits that first party No. 5 was looking
after and has total control over the Solapur Air Port i. e. First Party No. 3 and 4. At the time of changing of control
and taking charge, the first party No. 3 and 4 have assured second party that she will be made permanent and will
be pay salary and all consequential benefits of Government Employees. It is further case of the second party that
she was promised by Air Port In-charge and Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port regarding she will be paid Rs.
8,000/- to 9,000/- towards wages but amount was not received to second party. It is also contention of the second
party that she was given identity card being an employee of the Air Port Authority. She used to mark attendance
which was recorded by Air Port In-charge, Office In-charge of Solapur Air Port. Therefore, first party No. 1 to 5
have continuously and consistently kept supervision and control over the second party. Alternatively it is the case of
the second party that as an eye wash camouflage, the services employed were shown as contract labour through
first party No. 6, 7 and 8 for using a weapon to give go-by to the existing Labour Laws and to deny legitimate rights
of permanency and regularization of services. In short the second party claimed that she was and is employee of
first party No. 1 to 4.
45.
While deciding the core issue of employer-employee relationship between the second party and the first
party No. 1 to 4, the second party though claimed she was an employee of first party No. 1 to 4 and she have
submitted that the copies of documents at Ex. U-4, U-11 and U-20 respectively claiming that she was in the
employment since 2008 till 28/12/2015, that means more than approximately for 7 years of the service. It is
pertinent to note that the second party have not filed on record crucial documents mainly her appointment letter,
salary slip, documents relating to show her leave at relevant time and any contribution paid towards P. F. or E. S. I.
C. etc. etc. on record. It is oral contention of the second party that her services were supervised and managed by
first party No. 1 to 4 whereas she was examined herself below Ex. UW-1. In her cross-examination she admits that
she was appoint in the employment of Solapur Air Port at that time no notice was published in the newspaper
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3713
regarding the recruitment of the employees. Surprisingly she admits that one Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and
M/s. Shrikrishna Construction Contractor through whom she was appointed. She further admits that the Solapur
Air Port is transferred to Air Port Authority of India since 2012. The said Air Port of India never published any
time any advertisement in newspaper regarding recruitment of the employees.
Further she admits that she was not called for interview by the Air Port Authority of India nor she was
issued appointment letter. Surprisingly, she admits that Mr. Pramod Kulal, Union Steel and M/s. Shrikrishna
Constriction Contractor who are first party No. 6 to 8 used to send her another work during her employment. She
admits that after 2012 the officers of Air Port Authority of India never assured her regarding the permanency in
the employment. Further Air Port of India have not issued any identity card. All these vital admissions are self
explanatory to decide relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4. Further she admits that she was
given the entry pass at Air Port Solapur. The period of entry pass was expired on 30/04/2010 and first party No. 1
to 4 have issued same entry pass to second party for the period ending on 31/12/2015.
46.
Admittedly, no appointment orders are issued, no payment slips are issued to the second party nor
termination order issued to the second party. In her cross-examination conduced by and on behalf of first party No.
5 she surprisingly admits that her claim is against only first party No. 1 to 4. She denied that since her employment
till her termination she worked through contractor. The Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 2A (2) of
the I. D. Act conducted conciliation proceedings and after its failure issued certificate to second party to approach
to appropriate forum. The documents which are placed on record mainly the demand notice dated 16/07/2016
certificate issued by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune and copy of entry pass valid till 30/04/2010
and entry pass issued by Solapur Air Port valid till 31/12/2015 and one page of attendance register having no
signature, seal or name of the employer.
47.
It is true that the second party filed application at Ex. U-8 for direction to produce some copies of
documents at Ex. U-8 and U-9. Both the applications are partly allowed by my Ld. Predecessor by orders dated
13/03/2019 and 02/03/2023. But first party failed to produce those documents. Surprisingly, the second party filed
application at Ex. U-11 for permission to lead secondary evidence before the Court. The said application was
allowed and second party is permitted to lead secondary evidence. Therefore, on behalf of second party filed list of
documents at Ex. U-11 and at Ex. U-14 copy of attendance register for the period 09/03/2014 to 18/06/2014 does
not bear name of employer or signature of any concerned supervisor/manager or authorized officer. At Ex. U-15
the second party himself to file document showing that handing over/taking over of Solapur Air Port of
Government of Maharashtra to Air Port Authority of India in pursuance to G. R. Dated 04/12/2012 the first party
was transferred to Air Port Authority of India in the year 2012.
Most surprising the document which is filed
by the second party by way secondary evidence at Ex. U-16, it is the photocopy of attendance register showing
muster was kept by Union Steel First Party No. 6 for the period August-2008 to February-2015 at Ex. U-17 is
another attendance register for the period 02/02/2015 to 31/12/2015 which does not bear name of employer,
signature of any manager or authorized officer nor filed on record any document vouchers or bank statement
showing that the second party was paid directly by first party No. 1 to 4 whereas her claim of reinstatement of
continuity of service and back wages against first party No. 1 to 4. The documents which are placed on record are
most clearly showing that the second party was in the employment of Union Steel Contractor first party No. 6 since
2008. Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against first party No. 1 to 5. Two corroborate documents her
cross-examination below Ex. UW-1 is more than sufficient to establish the relationship between the second party
and first party No. 1 to 4 those documents loudly speaking that the second party was in the employment through
contractor that is first party No. 6 to 8.
48.
It should not be ignored that the first party No. 2 to 4 filed the copy of annual maintenance contract (Civil)
2015-2016 for operational area at Solapur Air Port Page No. 1 to 154 at Ex. C-17. The contract agreement dated
20/10/2015 signed between the Air Port Authority of India and M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions for supplying
manpower to first party No. 1 to 4. Considering all these documents mainly in the light of oral admissions given by
the second party in her cross-examination shows that she was never directly appointed by first party No. 1 to 4 nor
first party No. 5 at any point of time. Whereas documents herself placed on record showing that she was employed
through contractor namely Union Steel since 2008. Therefore, she was employee of contractor and not of first
party No. 1 to 4 as principal employer. These documents shows that there is no relationship between the second
party and first party No. 1 to 5 at any point of time.
49.
It is needless to mention here that in view of the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor and evidence led by
the second party it is admitted position that the second party was well aware that she was appointed through
contractor. However, she was contended that the said contract was sham and bogus and camouflage. As per
Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, there was no declaration regarding sham
and bogus contract unless and until it is declared by the appropriate authority that the said contract was sham and
bogus, the second party cannot claim any benefits as mentioned in her prayer clause of Statement of Claim against
first party No. 1 to 5. The entire burden was cast upon second party to establish there is employer-employee
relationship between second party and first party No. 1 to 4 and 5. However, though the burden cast upon second
party but she miserably failed to file on record cogent documentary evidence such as her appointment order, wages
3714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
paid by the first party No. 1 to 4 & 5 or she was issued any notice in her tenure of employment or any such
document which establishes the relationship between the first party No. 1 to 5 but the most relevant document
material are missing from the record.
50.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nilgiri (cited supra) where it is observed that unless it is proved by an appointment letter, salary etc. etc., it cannot
be said that there is any employer-employee relationship, moreover, unless there is reference to whether the
contract between the first party No. 1 and others regarding contract is sham and bogus, Tribunal cannot be
decided without referring such type of dispute to the Tribunal. On the contrary from the record first party No. 6 to
8 since beginning are the contractors.
51.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of International Air Port Authority of India Vs.
International Air Cargo Workers’ Union 2009 (123) FLR. has laid down that the Tribunal has to comply tests like
who pays the salary, who has power to remove/dismiss from service, or to initiate disciplinary action. In short who
has direct control and supervision over employees to decide whether the contract is nominal or only on paper. It is
further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unless there is invocation under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Tribunal cannot direct the principal employer to absorb or regularize services of the
contract labour. It is also held that the supervision and control of principal employer will not be only test to hold
that they are direct employees of the principal employer.
52.
On behalf of first party No. 5 so many observations are relied to show that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the first party and first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. In all the observations in sum and
substance are similar as discussed above. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is claim of the second party that she
was terminated on 28/12/2015 by the first party No. 1 to 4. In fact it is brought on record that she was contract
labour. Her termination appears to be non renewal of contract with first party No. 1 to 5. Therefore, termination
does not constituted retrenchment also. Therefore, she is not entitled to get relief of reinstatement with continuity
of service and to regularize in the employment since 2009 against first party No. 1 to 5. In absence of any
employer-employee relationship though the second party examined herself but failed to establish that there is
relationship of employer-employee between first party No. 1 to 5 and second party. Therefore, claim of
reinstatement and back wages against first party no. 1 to 5 required to be answered in negative.
As second party failed to prove the relationship between herself and first party No. 1 to 4. Therefore, issue
is required to be answered in the negative.
53.
The another issue is in respect of entitlement of relief of second party. It is the case of the first party No. 1
to 4 since beginning that the first party No. 6 to 8 appointed the second party paid the salary, supervise and
manage her services, she was allotted work in different places other than first party. It is also contention that the
first party No. 6 to 8 she received wages from first party No. 6 to 8 and the first party No. 6 to 8 are the principal
employer of the second party. Therefore, first party No. 6 to 8 are answerable for legitimate demand of second
party and they are duty bound to comply all the statutory provisions of Labour Laws, Standing Orders, Circulars
related with second party’s employment.
54.
During the course of argument Shri. B. T. Jadhav, Ld. Advocate for first party No. 7 fairly submitted that
during crucial period of termination of second party was not paid salary for the month of November and
December-2015. The contract with first party No. 1 to 4 came to an end on 31/12/2015 due to non renewal of
contract they are unable to provide employment to second party. However, they are ready to pay unpaid wages of
two months. It is pertinent to note here that though the second party in her statement of claim contended that work
which she was performed still in existence at first party No. 1 to 4. However, to show this fact neither filed any
document nor examined any independent witness to establish that the work is available. Mere allegations in the
Statement of Claim are not sufficient to hold that the work is available.
55.
At the same time it should not be ignored that admittedly since 2008 till 20/12/2015 she was working as
sweeping, cleaning and due to non renewal of contract, she was terminated without issuing notice by first party No.
6 to 8. At the most, she is entitled to get two months salary and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments that if reinstatement is not possible then concerned employee should be given lump-sum compensation
considering her 8 years service through contractor, notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other legal dues as
per applicable Law to the second party by first party No. 6 to 8 are liable to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- to second party, it will be met the ends of justice and no prejudice will be caused either to first party No.
6 to 8 or to the second party.
56.
Therefore, in this angle of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case I come to conclusion that
second party is entitled to get lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final of her claim. Therefore,
issue regarding entitlement should required to be answered in partly in affirmative and I answer the same in partly
in affirmative. I find much substance in the statement made on behalf first party No. 1 to 4 and first party No. 5,
the observations relied by the first parties are helpful to decide the issue of contract labour by this Tribunal.
Though on behalf of second party some observations are relied but they are not helpful to the facts and
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3715
circumstances of the present case in hand. With due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court I mentioned here that
the observations relied by the second party are not helpful to grant relief claimed by her.
57.
Therefore, reference needs to be answered partly in affirmative against the first party No. 6 to 8 only. With
this, I proceed to pass following award:-
AWARD
1)
Reference (IT) No. 07/2017 is answered partly in affirmative against first party No. 6 to 8 only.
2)
First Party No. 6 to 8 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to second party within period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of award.
3)
No order as to costs.
4)
Copies of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.
5)
Proceedings is closed.
Date: 06-12-2025
M. R. KUMBHAR, Presiding Officer
amj/-
Assistant Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Solapur.
Dictated on: 05 & 06/12/2025
Transcribed on: 08, 09 & 10/12/2025
Checked & Signed on: 11/12/2025
नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 713.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a171/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/21/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 171/2001) 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-12012/21/2001- 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 27th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 171/2001
Between:
3716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri P. Siddi Ramulu,
Yeguvakotha palli,
Botlacheruvu(Post),
Rayachoty(M),
Cuddapah (A.P) 516001.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant 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
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/21/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.08.2001
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, Guttakinda Rachapalli Branch, in
terminating the services of Sri P. Siddi Ramulu, Sweeper-cum-water Boy is justified? If not, what relief
Workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 171/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3717
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 he joined the service of the Respondent Bank at Guttakinda Rachapalli branch on 26.03.1985 as a sweeper-cum-
water Boy and worked for 270 days till 20.07.1988. He is submitted that the Respondent taking into account his
experience called him for an interview for absorption. He was selected in the interview and his name was included in
the panel as per the orders dated 28.08.1991. It is submitted that after his selection the Petitioner was provided with
work at Guttakinda Rachapalli branch for 27 days in another spell during end of July, 1988 to October, 1993. Later he
was provided with work in the last spell at the same branch during November, 1993 to March, 1997 for another 506
days. In all the Petitioner has worked for 1043 days in the Respondent bank. The Respondent has terminated his
services with verbal orders dt. 31.03.1997 without assigning any valid reasons. It is submitted that the work turned
out by the Petitioner was of continuous and permanent in nature. Even though sufficient work was available the
Respondent has created artificial breaks in his service with a malafide intentions to deprive the petitioner the
protection and the benefits under the labour laws. It is submitted that the action of the Respondent in this regard is
nothing but victimization and an unfair labour practice. It is submitted that the last drawn salary of the petitioner was
Rs. 2600/- per month approx. 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
3718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd
settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement
(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all
these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the
list of the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be
regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under
the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options
elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was
made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7.
Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated
16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were
specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted
to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel
and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is
specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement
and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High court
of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also
directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High Court also
recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions
given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the
agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a
settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid
upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the
basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide
impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable
expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the
settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said
action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court
and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General
Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as
illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as
violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to
absorb them in service.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3719
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.The management
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
3720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing
of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to
engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It
was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies
till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management
terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of
natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental
and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the
settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was
extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that
while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily
wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3721
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also 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 is the Study certificate by common examination Board Cuddpah. Further Ex.W2 is the transfer certificate.
Ex.W3 is the Caste certificate. Ex.W4 is the Service certificate dated 01.08.1988 Ex.W5 is the letter regarding
3722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
absorption of temporary employees. Ex. W6 is the Service particulars of the petitioner. Ex.W7 is the service
particulars of the Petitioner.
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
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. Siddi Ramulu, 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3723
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
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.
3724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3725
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."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
3726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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 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 the bank in any branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3727
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
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
3728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 non-messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union in
the year 1989, …. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in
by temporary employees. Some of the temporary 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 the 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3729
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
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
3730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3731
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.
Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels
and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such
employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the
counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the
available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the
date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in
the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for
absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not
established.
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. Siddi Ramulu, Ex.Sweeper cum water boy, 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.
3732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed
by me on this the 27th day of February, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P. Siddi Ramulu
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photocopy of Study certificate by common examination Board Cuddpah
Ex.W2: Photocopy of transfer certificate
Ex.W3: Photocopy of Caste certificate
Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex.W5: Photocopy of letter regarding absorption of temporary employees
Ex. W6: Photocopy of Service particulars of the Petitioner
Ex.W7: Photocopy of Service particulars of the Petitioner
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, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 714.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a60/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/470/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3733
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 60/2001) 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-12012/470/2000- 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 5th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2001
Between:
Sri N. Ramasubbaiah
Kothapet(Post)
Via sugar factory,
Balanagar,
Cuddapah-509202.
… Petitioner
And
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal office,
Renigunta Road,
Tirupati – 517501.
…..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-12012/470/2000-IR(B.I) dated
26.06.2001 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 justified in
terminating Sri N. Ramasubbaiah, 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. 60/2001 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
3734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 the service of the Respondent bank at cuddapah main branch on 1.8.1985 as a messenger and he
worked upto 31.12.1987 for 172 days. The Petitioner was asked to attend the interview and to produce the certificates
by a letter dt. 19.07.1989. In the mean while he was provided with work during 2.01.1989 for 83 days. He was
selected in the interview. The Petitioner was provided with work during 15.11.1991 to 13.3.1997 in the same branch
and in the same capacity for 578 days. The Petitioner submits that his last drawn salary was Rs. 2770/- per month.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3735
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
a facet of unfair labour practice.
3736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3737
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
3738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily
wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3739
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W9. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the Study certificate . Further Ex.W2 is the Transfer Certificate. Ex.W3 is the Caste Certificate . Ex.W4 is
the Service Certificate . Ex.W5 is the service certificate. Ex.W6 is the Service certificate Ex. W7 is the Service
certificate dated Ex. W8 is the Interview call letter and Ex.W9 is another service certificate.
21.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. Bala Kotaiah and this witness has
exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-
Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement
dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings
dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.
27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-
Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme
Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
I.
Whether the 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 N. Ramasubbaiah 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.
3740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 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.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3741
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
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
3742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3743
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 regular process of selection before my
engagement as a temporary messenger..”
“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
3744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3745
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 for appointment in response to an advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlements between the
union and the Management in the year 1989. …. Further, witness states, I do not know that the panel was prepared
depending upon the number of days of service put in the temporary employees. It is true that some of the temporary
employees who were included in the panel were given regular employment in the bank in their order of seniority….
Further witness states, I am not having any evidence to show that any of my juniors are continuing in the service.”
3746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3747
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
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
3748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3749
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 N. Ramasubbaiah, 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 5th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri N. Ramasubbaiah
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Study certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Transfer certificate.
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Caste Certificate
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex. W7:
Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Interview call letter
Ex.W9:
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.
3750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 715.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a170/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/20/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 170/2001) 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-12012/20/2001- 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 4th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 170/2001
Between:
Tupakula Balanagulu,
S/o Balaiah,
Post Dhoolimitta(M)
Maddur,
Warnagal-506367
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank street, Koti,
Hyderabad-500095.
…..Respondent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3751
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-12012/20/2001 -IR(B.I) dated 10.08.2001
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 Tupakula Balanagulu, S/o Balaiah, Non-Messenger, in SBI Dhoolimitta Branch,
Warangal Distt., with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief applicant is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 170/2001 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.
3752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Non-Messenger from 1981 to 1994, and has
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3753
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
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
3754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3755
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
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
3756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W9. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the notification. Further Ex.W2 is the interview call letter. Ex.W3 is the Panel list. Ex.W4 is the service
certificate dated Ex.W5 is the service certificate. Ex.W6 is the service certificate. Ex. W7 is the Service certificate
dated 04.03.1997. Ex. W8 is the Service certificate. Ex. W9 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W10 is the requisition letter
to Employment Exchange. Ex. W11 is the Circular letter14.7.1999.
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 branch in terminating the
services of Workman T. Balanagulu a Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?
III.
Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent
management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?
IV.
To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3757
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).
3758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3759
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. 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."
3760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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 for the engagement as a temporary non-messenger in the
bank. ..”
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3761
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
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
3762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3763
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 settlement entered into by the union with the
bank…. Further, witness states, It is true that the vacancies were filled up following the order of their seniority in the
panel. Further witness states, I am not having any document to show that any person having less no. of days of
service than me was given appointment on regular basis 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;
3764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3765
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
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
3766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 T. Balanagulu, Ex. Non-Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,
dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by
me on this the 4th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri T. Balanagulu
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of interview call letter
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of panel list
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W10:
Notification employment exchange
Ex.W11:
Circular letter dated 14.07.1999
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3767
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, 17 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 716.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a182/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/72/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2026
S.O. 716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 182/2001) 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-12012/72/2001- 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 4th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 182/2001
Between:
Sri Katam Ramulu,
S/o Laxmaiah,
H.No. 3-80,
3768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(M)& (PO)
Cherial,
Warangal 506223.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank street Koti,
Hyderabad-500095.
….. 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-12012/72/2001-IR(B.I) dated 16.08.2001
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 Katam Ramulu, Ex-Temporary Messenger, SBI A.D.B Cherial branch, Warangal Dist
(A.P) 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. 182/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3769
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 he joined the service of the Respondent Bank at the workman Messenger on 1987 to 1996 and rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 9 years, and any dint of hard work till his services were
terminated by oral orders with effect from 1.04.1997. 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.
3770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3771
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.
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
3772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3773
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 W6. 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 22.08.1998. Ex.W3 is the Call letter for
interview. Ex.W4 is the Panel list Ex.W5 is the Service Certificate dated 30.05.1996. Ex.W6 is also 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.
3774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 K. Ramulu, 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3775
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
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
3776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3777
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the
contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
3778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the selection process required for
appointment as a messenger in the bank..”
“I did not work for 240 days in any year in the bank in my entire service.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3779
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,
3780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 union and
the bank…. Further, witness states, …the panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by
the temporary employees. It is true that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel
were given appointment on regular basis as per the settlements.…. Further witness states, I am not having any
evidence to show that any of my juniors were continued in 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3781
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:-
“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
3782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,
―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3783
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 K.Ramulu, 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 4th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri K. Ramulu
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Notification
3784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Service certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Call letter for interview
Ex.W4 to
Ex.W6:
Photocopies of Service certificates
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, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 717.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a169/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/19/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 169/2001) 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-12012/19/2001- 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 27th day of February, 2026
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3785
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 169/2001
Between:
Sri B. Chandru,
S/o Nariya,
Mungimadugu(P),
Ramannagudern,
Dhansingh, Thanda,
Narasimlapet(M),
Warangal -506324.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank street Koti,
Hyderabad-500095.
….. 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-12012/19/2001-IR(B.I) dated 16.08.2001
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. Chandru. S/o B. Nariya Non-Messenger, SBI Narasimlapet Branch,Warangal Dist.
(A.P) w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief applicant is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 169/2001 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
3786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 he joined the service of the Respondent Bank at the workman joined in the services of the Management Institution
as Non Messenger from 1979 to 1995 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 3 years, and
by dint of hard work till his services were terminated by 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‖.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3787
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the
1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the
3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th
settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5.
That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable
expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services
would be regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis
was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his
options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial
terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7.
Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR,
dated 16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein
were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is
permitted to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman
aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the
selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of
A.P.. It is specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the
settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The
Hon‘ble High court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from
time to time. It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The
Hon‘ble High Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement.
In view of the directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared
on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on
the basis of a settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel
was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992
and on the basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under
the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said
reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to
the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said
action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court
and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General
Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as
illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as
violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to
absorb them in service.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
3788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3789
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for
absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the
Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of
the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman
and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the
settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was
extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that
while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily
wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
16.
It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal
Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra
Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the
panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers
denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were
prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put
in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was
arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of
the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived
3790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read
with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on
27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been
completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these
vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-
messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the
Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of
temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies
were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a
continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his
candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into
thereon.
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for
employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be
decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of
the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who
unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for
regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the
settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the
bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of
the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time
basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on
permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore
misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the
settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank
Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for
by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
18.
Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be
continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door
entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also 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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3791
Ex.W1 is the Service Certificate dated 04.05.1989. Further Ex.W2 is the Notification. Ex.W3 is the panel list.
Ex.W4 is the Service Certificate dated 22.07.1995. Ex.W5 is the notification issued by Respondent to Employment
exchange. Ex. W6 is the circular letter dated 14.07.1999.
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 branch in terminating the
services of Workman Sri B. Chandru, a Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?
III.
Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent
management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?
IV.
To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?
Findings:-
25.
Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,
minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the
State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947
read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
3792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3793
“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.
3794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
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."
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3795
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the
contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
29.
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court,
we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my
engagement as a non-messenger...”
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in any branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
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
3796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3797
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 a non-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 panels 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.
3798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3799
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
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
3800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 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 B. Chandru, 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3801
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 27th day of February, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri B. Chandru
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 17.08.1988
Ex.W2: Photocopy of Notification
Ex.W3: Photocopy of Panel list
Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service certificate dated 22.07.1995
Ex.W5: Photocopy of notification issued by Respondent to Employment exchange
Ex.W6: Photocopy of circular letter dated 14.07.1999
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 718.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a73/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/517/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
3802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 73/2001) 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-12012/517/2000- 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. 73/2001
Between:
Sri G. Dhanraj,
S/o D. John,
Sanjeevapuram,
Parsigutta,
opp: Moon Rock Hotel,
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-12012/517/2000-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:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head office, Hyderabad in
terminating the services of Sri G. Dhanraj, 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. 73/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3803
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 on 1985 to 1997, and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 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
3804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3805
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.
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
3806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3807
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.
3808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and examined Sri C. Yadagiri as
WW2 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W14. 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. Ex.W4
is the recruitment of 30 days category Ex.Temporay employees. Ex.W5 is the Call letter for interview. Ex. W6 is the
Memorandum. Ex. W7 is the Service Certificate dated 6.08.1992. Ex. W8 is the Absorption letter. Ex. W9 is the
Service Certificate dated 6.8.1992. Ex. W10 is the Temporary appointment. Ex. W11 is the Temporary appointment.
Ex. W12 is the Service Certificate dated 23.05.1994. Ex. W13 is the Service Certificate dated 9.04.1997. Ex. W14 is
the Service Certificate dated 9.04.1997.
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 G. Dhanraj, 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3809
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.
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:-
3810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3811
(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
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)
3812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3813
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.
3814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in 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 the service 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3815
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
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
3816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3817
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.
Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels
and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such
employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the
counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the
available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the
date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in
the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for
absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not
established.
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.
3818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 G. Dhanraj, 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 G. Dhanraj
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
WW2; Sri C. Yadagiri
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Transfer Certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Caste Certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of recruitment of 30 days category Ex. Temporary employees
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Call letter for interview
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Memorandum
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate 6.08.1992
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Absorption letter
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 6.08.1992
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Temporary appointment
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Temporary appointment
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 9.04.1997
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate dated 9.04.1997
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3819
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, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 719.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a109/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/466/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 719.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.109/2001) 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-12012/466/2000- 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. 109/2001
Between:
Sri G. Raju,
S/o G. Balakrishna,
R/o 8-3-430/84,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
Yellareddyguda, Amberpet,
Hyderabad-783.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.),
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank Street,
Koti (A.P)
Hyderabad.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
3820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/466/2000-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 Shri G. Raju, Temporary/Non-Messenger, SBI with effect from 31-3-1997 is
justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 109/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and
the management.
2.
Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye
view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch
cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of
the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the
aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ
petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases
by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State
Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to
their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy
arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch
petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of
2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High
Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal
was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-
“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial
Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the
proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,
in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the
length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for
each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case
ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important
aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that
could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have
been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,
which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the
order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings
and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for
consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the
materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the
management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing
for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the
Tribunal in this line may be expedited.
9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;
(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award
dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
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 the workman joined in the services of the Management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3821
Institution as Messenger on 1989 to 1997 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 8 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
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
3822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3823
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
3824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3825
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 W11. 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. Ex.W3 is the call letter for interview. Ex.W4 is
the Appointment letter. Ex.W5 is the Service Certificate. Ex.W6 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W7 is the Service
Certificate . Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate . Ex. W9 is the Service Certificate Ex. W10 is the letter to
employment exchange by Respondent. Ex. W11 is the Circular letter dated 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, in terminating the services of Workman Sri G. Raju, 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?
3826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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).
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3827
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
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
3828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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. 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."
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3829
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 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 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.
3830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3831
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.
3832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 1991..
The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary employees. 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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3833
(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.
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.
3834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3835
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 G. 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.
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 G. Raju
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photocopy of Notification
Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W3: Photocopy of Call letter for interview
Ex.W4: Photocopy of Appointment letter
Ex.W5: Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
3836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W10:
Photocopy of letter to employment exchange by Respondent
Ex.W11:
Photocopy of Circular letter dated 14.7.1999
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 720.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a186/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/76/2001-आईआर(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 720.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 186/2001) 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-12012/76/2001- 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 4th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 186/2001
Between:
Sri Pashula Yadagiri,
Peddammagadda,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3837
Mandal Cherial,
Warangal 506223.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank street Koti,
Hyderabad-500095.
….. 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-12012/76/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.08.2001
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 Pashula Yadagiri, Ex-Temporary. Messenger, SBI A.D.B. Cherial Branch, Warangal Dist
(A.P) w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 186/2001 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
3838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 he joined the service of the Respondent Bank and the workman joined in the services of the Management
Institution as Non Messenger in 1983 to 1997 and rendered unblemished service over a period of about 11 years, and
by dint 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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3839
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
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
3840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3841
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
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.
3842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements
having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
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 W9. 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 call letter for interview. Ex.W3 is the Appointment letter. Ex.W4 is
the service certificate. Ex.W5 is the Service certificate dated 01.04.1997. Ex.W6 is the service certificate dated
30.05.1996. Ex. W7 is the Service certificate dated 01.04.1997. Ex. W8 is the Notification to employment exchange.
Ex. W9 is the Circular letter dated 14.07.1999.
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3843
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. Pashula Yadagiri, 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
3844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement
which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,
Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of
panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision
contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.
In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ
510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-
―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement
was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again
entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these
settlements are under Section 18(1).
14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can
only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters
of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement
entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the
Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The
Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes
Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the
A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If
parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before
the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and
Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while
deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3845
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
3846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3847
“I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular selection process required for
appointment as a temporary non-messenger..”
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service I worked 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
3848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3849
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 advertisement issued by the bank in terms of the settlements entered between the bank
and the union. …. Further, witness states, The panels were prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in
by the temporary employees. It is true that some of the employees whose names were kept in the panel were given
regular appointment in the bank in the order of their seniority…. Further witness clarified that he had not known any
juniors were appointed.”
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
3850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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:-
“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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3851
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
3852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Pashula Yadagiri, Ex. Nona-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 4th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Pashula Yadagiri
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Notification
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of call letter for interview
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3853
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Appointment letter
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service certificate dated 01.04.1997
Ex. W6:
Photocopy of Service certificate dated 30.05.199
Ex. W7:
Photocopy of Service certificate dated 01.04.1997
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Notification employment exchange
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Circular letter dated 14.07.1999
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.17.11.87
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.16.7.88
Ex.M3:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.27.10.1988
Ex.M4:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.9.1.1991
Ex.M5:
Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995
Ex.M6:
Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation
dt.30.7.1996
Ex.M7:
Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997
Ex.M8:
Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.
Ex.M9:
Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel
Ex.M10:
Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel
Ex.M11:
Photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98
Ex.M12:
Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98
नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 721.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a184/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/74/2001-आईआर(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 721.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 184/2001) 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-12012/74/2001- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
3854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 4th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 184/2001
Between:
Sri Perumandle Kumaraswamy,
S/o Gummaiah,
H.No. 8-20,(M)
(PO) Atmakur,
Warangal 506342.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank street Koti,
Hyderabad-500095.
….. 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-12012/74/2001-IR(B.I) dated 16.08.2001
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 Perumandla Kumaraswamy, Ex-Temporary Messenger, SBI Hanumakonda Branch
Warangal Dist (A.P) 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. 184/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3855
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 he joined the service of the Respondent Bank at Warnagal during 25.02.1993 to 2.03.1993 for 5 days. Later he
was provided with work in different spells at Hanumakonda branch during April, 1993 to March, 1997 for 339 days.
Similarly he was provided with work at Parakala A.D.B branch during April, 1995 to June, 1995 for 8 days. Later he
was provided with work at Enumamula branch during June 1996 to March, 1997 for 93 days. The Petitioner submits
that he worked honestly and sincerely in all the branches wherever he was asked to work. There were no complaints
against him regarding his work either from the customers or from the officers. His past conduct and length of service
was not considered. The Respondent has not provided him the work after March, 1997 without assigning any valid
reasons. It is submitted that the last drawn salary of the Petitioner was Rs. 2,800/- per month 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- 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
3856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was
held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to
be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is
mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was
entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary
employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the
years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the
panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have
been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st
settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd
settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement
(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all
these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the
list of the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be
regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under
the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options
elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was
made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7.
Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated
16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were
specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted
to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel
and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is
specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement
and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High
court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It
also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High
Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the
directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of
the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a
settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid
upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the
basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide
impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable
expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the
settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said
action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court
and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General
Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as
illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as
violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to
absorb them in service.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
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:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3857
"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.
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
3858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3859
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.
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
3860
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 School certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the caste certificate. Ex.W3 is the Caste certificate. Ex.W4 is the
service certificate dated 18.9.199 Ex.W5 is the Service Certificate dated 01.10.1997. Ex.W6 is the service certificate
dated 24.19.1997. Ex. W7 is the Service certificate dated 05.09.1997. Ex. W8 is the Service certificate dated
28.01.1998.
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. Kumara swamy, 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3861
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.
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.
3862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
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
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—
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3863
(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
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
3864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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,
“My name was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular process of selection
required for appointment as a Messenger..”
“It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in the bank in my entire service.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3865
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
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.
3866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied to the bank in response to an advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlements between the union
and the Management …. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service
put in by the temporary employees. Some of the persons whose names were included in the panel were given
appointment on regular basis in the bank…. Further witness states, I am not having any proof or document to show
that any of my juniors were continued in 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3867
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
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
3868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to
grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the
claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.
44.
Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts
has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as
settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel
list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary
employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their
seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been
committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.
45.
As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond
31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired
on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in
the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the
vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the
permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3869
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank.
Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels
and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such
employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the
counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the
available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the
date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in
the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for
absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not
established.
This point is answered against the Workman.
3870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. Kumara Swamy, 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 4th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P. Kumaraswamy
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of School certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of caste certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of caste certificate
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of service certificate dated01.10.1997
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of service certificate dated 24.19.1997
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Service certificate dated 05.09.1997
Ex.W8:
Photocopy Service certificate dated 28.01.1998.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3871
नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 722.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a240/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/162/2001-आईआर(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 722.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 240/2001) 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-12012/162/2001- 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 3rd day of February 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 240/2001
Between:
Smt P. Bharathi,
D/o Laxmaiah,
R/o.H.No. 5.4.41, Muralidarbagh,
Mozamzahi Market,
Abids Road,
Hyderabad-500 001 A.P
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti,
Hyderabad -500 001.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. V. Mallik, K. Shankar Rao, M. Madhusudhan & Galaiah Velugu, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri A. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/162/2001-IR (B.I) dated 3.10.2001
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to this Tribunal requiring this forum to
decide the question:
3872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office Hyderabad in terminating
the services of Smt. P. Bharathi 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. 240/2001 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 I.D 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 Sweeper from 1986 to 1994 and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 8 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman
by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided
to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them
by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3873
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, i.e. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be
valid up to 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 was 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 up to December 1991, and on the basis of a
settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive up to 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid up
to December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid up to 1992 and on the
basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive up to 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.
3874
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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/ attenders/ 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 in spite 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3875
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
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 contention 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
3876
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 up to 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 up to 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 up to 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 affected 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3877
Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favor 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 whatsoever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex. W1 to W9. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
his claim which are discussed as under: -
Ex. W1 is the Notification, Further Ex. W2 is the employment exchange card, Ex. W3 is the absorption letter of
Petitioner dt.11.5.89. Ex. W4 to Ex.W9 are the Service Certificates.
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, Vijayawada in terminating the services of Workman
Smt. P. Bharathi 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:-
3878
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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 cannot 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3879
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.
3880
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3881
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 did not undergo 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 the bank in any branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
3882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3883
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
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.
3884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied for appointment as Non-messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union in
the year 1989….…. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in
by the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given
regular appointment in 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
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,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3885
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: -
“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
3886
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,
―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held: -
“49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of
Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh, and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was
decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently.
A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was
entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to
December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were
to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse.
MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time
attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial
positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the
empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the
copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding
was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on
31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving
the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel,
Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989
panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come, he could not be given
permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance
with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of
days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not
sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment
as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3887
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.
ORDER
In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the
services of Smt. P. Bharathi Ex. Non- Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,
dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed
by me on this the 3rd day of February, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Smt P. Bharathi
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Notification
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of employment exchange card
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of absorption letter of Petitioner dt.11.5.89
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
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
3888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 723.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a140/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/367/2000- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 723.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 140/2001) 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-12012/367/2000- 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 4th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 140/2001
Between:
Sri Karra Adiseshudu,
S/o Venkata Subba Rao,
V. Kothapalem(PO),
Koduru(M),
Krishna District-521124.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office Region-II,
Labbipet,
Vijayawada (A.P)-520004.
…..Respondent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3889
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri M. Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
SriY. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/367/2000-IR(B.I) dated
09.05.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to requiring this forum to
decide the question:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing services of
Sri K. Adiseshudu, Ex- Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
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.
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.
3890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1986 to 1997, and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years. The Respondent has terminated services of
Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent
bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by
wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.
4.
That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the
Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were
listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have
completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed
minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate
temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.
5.
The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and
the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.
Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the
suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the
selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be
valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no
temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from
amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that
consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for
responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was
held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to
be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is
mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was
entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary
employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the
years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the
panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have
been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st
settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd
settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement
(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all
these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3891
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
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.
3892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3893
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
3894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 W4. 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.. Ex.W3 is the service certificate. Ex.W4 is the
service certificate.
21.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Rupakula Prakash Babuand 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, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Workman
Sri K. Adiseshudu, ex-Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?
III.
Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent
management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?
IV.
To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?
Findings:-
25.
Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,
minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3895
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
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
3896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3897
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
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."
3898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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 for the appointment in the bank. I did not undergo regular
process of selection before my engagement as a non-messenger on temporary basis..”
“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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3899
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
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
3900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3901
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied in response to the notification issued by the bank in terms of the settlements entered between the bank
and the union…. Further, witness states, The panels were prepared depending 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
also given regular appointment in the bank as per the settlements.…. Further witness states, I am not having
documents to show that any of my juniors were continued in 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;
(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
3902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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:-
“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:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3903
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,
―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are
Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled
were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1
states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it
was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists
concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another
settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies
arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so
prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said
panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including
part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-
messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled
before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.
Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of
understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned
will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the
statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non-
messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included
in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be
given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in
accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority,
number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner
was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for
appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary
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
3904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the
counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross
examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on
31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post.
Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were
expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no
termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the
available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the
date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in
the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for
absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not
established.
This point is answered against the Workman.
48.
Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not
entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.
This Point is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in dismissing the
services of Sri K. Adiseshudu, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,
dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 4th day of February, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri K. Adhiseshudu
MW1: Sri Rupakula Prakash Babu
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3905
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, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 724.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a164/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/14/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 724.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 164/2001) 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-12012/14/2001- 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 27th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 164/2001
Between:
Smt Kottapalli Laxmi,
W/o K. Venkataiah,
H.No.3/5/86, Gudibandalu,
Hanamkonda,
Warangal-506367.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank street Koti,
Hyderabad-500095.
…..Respondent
3906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-12012/14/2001-IR(B.I) dated 16.08.2001
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 Smt Kottapalli Laxmi, W/o K. Venkataiah, Non-Messenger, Industrial Estate Branch,
Warangal Dist. (A.P) SBI w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief applicant is entitled ?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 164/2001 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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3907
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 her claim statement are that,
the she joined the service of the Respondent Bank at the workman joined in the services of the Management
Institution as Messenger on 1987 to 1992 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 5 years,
and by dint of hard work till her 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 her services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all her 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
3908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3909
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.
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
3910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 her
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 her case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the
settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of
the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under
these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never
promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that
candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after
31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management
bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said
settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the
settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the
vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3911
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 her 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 her claim Workman has examined herself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W14. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support
of her claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the School certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the caste Certificate. Ex.W3 is the. Ex.W4 is service certificate
Ex.W5 is Petitioner‘s application dt. 14.9.91 Ex. W6 is the forwarding letter of Ex.W5. Ex. W7 is the Interview call
letter. Ex. W8 is the panel list. Ex. W9 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W10 is the order of instruction for engaging
workmen by Respondent bank. Ex. W11 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W12 is the Service Certificate. Ex.W13 is the
Service Certificate. Ex.W14 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?
3912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
II.
Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head office, Hyderabad branch in terminating the
services of Workman Smt.Kottapalli Laxmi, a Non- Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is
justified?
III.
Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent
management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?
IV.
To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?
Findings:-
25.
Point No.I:-
Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and
30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed
between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of
I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-
(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;
Section 18(1) provides as follows:-
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.
- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the
aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that
the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on
the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the
empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been
issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not
in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the
Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and
that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the
aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.
26.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal
Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in
the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-
―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of
temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided
by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖
Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated
25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category
from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements
entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent
Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial
category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels
of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office
order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has
been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been
decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary
employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the
aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the
Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily
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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3913
―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
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
3914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
her 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 herself 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 her oral as well as documentary evidence in support of her 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3915
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 her initial burden of proof in respect of her claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
In this context, WW1 in her cross examination has stated that,
“ my name was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo selection process required for
appointment as non-messenger..”
“I did not work for 240 days in any year in the bank in my entire service.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish her plea by her oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of her 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
3916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of her 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 her 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 her claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish her 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3917
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 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
3918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied to the bank in response to an advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlements between the union
and the Management.…. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service
put in by the temporary employees. Some of the whose names were included in the panel were given appointment on
regular basis in the bank…. Further witness states, 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 herself
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
her absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim her 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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3919
(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 her 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 her 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 her cross examination has herself 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.
3920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 her 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3921
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 her 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 her 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 her 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 Kottapalli Laxmi, Ex. Non-Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence,
dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed
by me on this the 27th day of February, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Smt Kottapalli Laxmi
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of School certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of caste Certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Petitioner‘s application dt. 14.9.91
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of the forwarding letter of Ex.W5
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Interview call letter
3922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of panel list
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W10:
Photocopy of order of instruction for engaging workmen by Respondent bank
Ex.W11:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W12:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W13:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W14:
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
नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 725.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a216/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/92/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 216/2001) 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-12012/92/2001- 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3923
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 216/2001
Between:
Sri Boddu Noble,
S/o Sikhamani,
Doddipatla (P.O.),
Kaikalur(M) -521340.
Krishna Dist.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region II,
Labbipet,
Vijayawada -520 004.
….. 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-12012/92/2001-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, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services
of Sri Boddu Noble, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 216/2001 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
3924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 726.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a229/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/134/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 229/2001) 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-12012/134/2001- 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 24th day of February 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 229/2001
Between:
Sri S. Ramakrishnaiah,
S/o S. Munaiah,
R/o.Repunjarajapuram (V. & P.O.),
Kothapally Mitta,
S.R. Puram (M)
Chittor district.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region-III
Tirupathi
…..Respondent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3925
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-12012/134/2001-IR (B.I) dated
18.09.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to this Tribunal requiring this
forum to decide the question:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing services of Sri
S. Ramakrishnaiah Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 229/2001 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 I.D 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
3926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 1980 to 1997 and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years. The Respondent has terminated services of
Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank
decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait-
listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.
4.
That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the
Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed.
That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed
270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum
of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service
in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.
5.
The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and
the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.
Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the
suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the
selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be
valid 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, i.e. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be
valid up to 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 was 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 up to December 1991, and on the basis of a
settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive up to 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid up
to December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid up to 1992 and on the
basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive up to 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3927
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said
action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court
and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General
Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as
illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as
violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to
absorb them in service.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c)
that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary
employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme.
The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact, there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attenders/ 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 in spite 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
3928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 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
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 contention 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3929
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 up to 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 up to 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 up to 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 affected 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
3930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 favor 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 whatsoever. 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 copy of the SSLC certificate of the Petitioner. Further Ex. W2 is the caste Certificate of the Petitioner.
Ex. W3 is the service certificate. Ex. W4 is the letter dated 3.07.1989 calling the Petitioner for interview. Ex. W5 is
the letter dated 28.08.1991 including the name of the Petitioner in the panel. Ex. W6 is the list of the panel workers.
Ex. W7 is the certificate dated 29.03.1997 issued by the Respondent. Ex. W8 is the letter dated 20.03.1997 not to
employ workers from 1.04.1997.
21.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness 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
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, Vijayawada in terminating the services of Workman Sri
S. Ramakrishnaiah 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?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3931
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 cannot 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).
3932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3933
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. 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
3934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 sponsored by any employment exchange. ……. I did not work continuously.
It is true that I ddi not work for 240 days in any year, in my entire service in the bank in any branch.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3935
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
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
3936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3937
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, I am not having any
evidence to show that any person, who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment in the bank.”
Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of
various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was
prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself
admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular
appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any
person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the
allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of
the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus,
there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily
wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no
evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in
order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.
40.
However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the
Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention
of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to
provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on
31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any
authority.
41.
In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996
was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules
1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed
that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the
date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is
binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding
force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at
finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been
challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel
i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for
his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent
post merely on the basis of number of working days.
42.
In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-
―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained
in Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
3938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3939
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 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
3940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
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. Ramakrishnaiah 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 24th day of February, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri S. Ramakrishnaiah
MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of copy of the SSLC certificate of the Petitioner
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of caste Certificate of the Petitioner
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of service certificate issued by the Respondent.
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of letter dated 04.08.1989 issued by the Respondent.
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of letter dated 28.08.1991 including the name of the Petitioner
in the panel.
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of list of the panel workers
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of certificate issued by the Respondent.
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of letter dated 20.03.1997 not to employ workers from
1.04.1997.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3941
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, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 727.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a188/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/78/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 727.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 188/2001) 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-12012/78/2001- 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 5th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 188/2001
Between:
Smt R. Anasuya,
RBI staff quarters,
D.No.C. 75, Yellereddyguda,
Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
3942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank street Koti,
Hyderabad-500095.
….. 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-12012/78/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.08.2001
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 Smt. R. Anasuya, 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. 188/2001 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!;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3943
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,
the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1986 to 1997, and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 9 years and by dint of hard work till her 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 her services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all her 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
3944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3945
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.
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
3946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 her
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 her 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3947
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 her 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 her claim Workman has examined herself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W9. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
her claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the notification. Further Ex.W2 is the interview call letter. Ex.W3 is the Service certificate dated
20.05.1989. Ex.W4 is the service certificate dated 30.08.1988 Ex.W5 is the service certificate 18.05.1989. Ex.W6 is
the service certificate dated 16.08.1994. Ex. W7 is the Service certificate dated 04.03.1997. Ex. W8 is the Notification
to employment exchange. Ex. W9 is the Circular letter dated 14.07.1999.
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
3948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Smt. R. Anasuya, 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3949
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
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.”
3950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 her name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
her 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 her
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 herself 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 her 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:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3951
"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 her 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 her initial burden of proof in respect of her claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her 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 for the engagement as a temporary messenger in the bank. I did
not undergo any kind of selection process before my engagement as a temporary messenger..”
“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 her termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
3952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman failed to establish her plea by her oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of her 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 her 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 her 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 her claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish her 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3953
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
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
3954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 as per the settlements entered into by the union with the
bank…. Further, witness states, The vacancies of messengers were filled up following the order of their seniority in
the panel…. Further witness states, I am not having any document to show that any person having less no. of days
of service than me was given appointment on regular basis 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 herself
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 her 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3955
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 her 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 her 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 her cross examination has herself 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
3956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3957
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 her 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 her 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 her 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. R. Anasuya, 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 Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me
on this the 5th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Smt. R. Anasuya
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of interview call letter
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of service certificate 20.05.1989
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of service certificate 30.08.1988
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service certificate 18.05.1989
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of service certificate 16.08.1994
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of service certificate 4.03.1997
Ex.W8:
Photocopy of Notification to employment exchange
Ex.W9:
Photocopy of Circular letter dated 14.07.1999
3958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 728.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a195/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/28/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 728.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 195/2001) 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-12012/28/2001- 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. 195/2001
Between:
Sri K.V. Pullaiah,
Chinnaguruvaluru,
Chapadu(M),
Cuddapah(A.P). 516172.
… Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3959
And
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Renigunta Road,
Tirupathi(A.P) 517501.
…..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-12012/28/2001-IR(B.I) dated 04.9.2001
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, Onipent Branch in terminating the services
of Sri K.V. Pullaiah, Sweeper-cum-Water Boy is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 195/2001 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;
3960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 1987 to 1996, and has rendered
unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years. The Respondent has terminated services of
Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent
bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by
wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.
4.
That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the
Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were
listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have
completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed
minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate
temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.
5.
The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and
the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment.
Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the
suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the
selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be
valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no
temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from
amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that
consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for
responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was
held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to
be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is
mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was
entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary
employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the
years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the
panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have
been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖.
6.
Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st
settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd
settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement
(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all
these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3961
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".
3962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3963
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
3964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 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 W7. 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 interview list. Ex.W3 is the Panel list. Ex.W4 is the Service
Certificate. Ex.W5 is the Service Certificate. Ex.W6 is the service certificate. Ex. W7 is the Service Certificate.
21.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. Bala Kotaiah and this witness has
exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-
Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement
dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings
dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt.
27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-
Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme
Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.
22.
Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various
judgements of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‘ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in
this Award.
23.
Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.
24.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both
the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3965
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 K.V.
Pullaiah, 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
3966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3967
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
3968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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 and I did not undergo the requires selection process before my
appointment as a non-messenger.”
“I did not work for 240 days in any year my entire service.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3969
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
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
3970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3971
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 and my name was included in the panel of temp. non-
messengers in the year 1989. Further, witness states, Some of the employees whose names were included in the
panel were given regular employment as per their seniority in the panel in accordance with the settlement…. Further
witness states, I am not having any papers to show that any of my juniors are continuing in 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:-
3972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
―(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.
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3973
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
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
3974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 K.V. Pullaiah, 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 K.V. Pullaiah
MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of Notification
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of Interview list
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Panel list
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of Service Certificate
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3975
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, 20 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 729.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a187/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –12012/77/2001- vkbZ- vkj- (ch-I)]
स , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026
S.O. 729.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 187/2001) 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-12012/77/2001- 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 4th day of March, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 187/2001
Between:
Sri K. Jayender,
S/o K. Sammaiah,
R/o Rapakapalli(V),
Dharmasagar(M),
3976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Tekulagudem(PO)
Warangal.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Bank street Koti,
Hyderabad-500095.
….. 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-12012/77/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.08.2001
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head office, Hyderabad in terminating
the services of Sri K. Jayendar, Ex-Temporary Messenger, SBI Hanumakonda Branch Warangal Dist (A.P)
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. 187/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3977
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 he joined the service of the Respondent Bank at Industrial Estate branch, Warangal on 20.02.1985 and he worked
for 79 days upto 11.05.1985 as a messenger. Later he was called for an interview for absorption into the regular
employment on permanent basis. He was selected in the interview and his name was included in the panel by an order
dt 3.09.1991. It is submitted that the Petitioner was extended with an opportunity to work as a messenger at
Hanumakonda branch during 04.11.1991 to 2.01.1992 for 60 days. Later he was provided with work for 527 days
during 3.08.1992 to January, 1996 in the same capacity in the same branch, sometimes his services were utilized as a
Sweeper and water boy also. It is submitted that he was not provided with work after January, 1996 without assigning
any valid reasons. His last drawn salary was Rs. 2,600/- per month 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- 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
3978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options
elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was
made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7.
Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated
16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were
specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted
to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel
and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon‘ble High court of A.P.. It is
specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement
and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon‘ble High
court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It
also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon‘ble High
Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the
directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of
the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a
settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid
upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the
basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide
impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable
expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the
settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and
31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who
are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said
action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court
and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General
Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as
illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as
violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to
absorb them in service.
8.
Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has
submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of
circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre.
It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had
engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or
of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the
employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend
under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit
would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is
a facet of unfair labour practice.
9.
The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87,
16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90
stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:
"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in
the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management
so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned
that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be
eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect
of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered
into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3979
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide
permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time
exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen
covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons
who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the
Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees
who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only
broad guidelines and not directives".
10.
The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a
clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to
a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement
in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management
to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein
as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management
has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of
Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is
submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued
the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for
absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management
should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal,
unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they
have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for
absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms
of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized
and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the
liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall
implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.
12.
Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be
absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices
and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to
their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the
Constitution of India.
13.
The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called
Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the
Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair
labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97
who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice
and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural
justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's
notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without
jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is
not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that
Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90
in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.
The
management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving
chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,
subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,
the Management refused to 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.
3980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and
contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff
constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the
Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff
like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary
basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of
India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of
the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of
temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
15.
Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the
Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after
referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement
above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized
would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies
which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the
Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992
in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.
A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to
arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to
all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.
The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee
constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow
the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in
12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided
by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less
than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the
Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it
is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after
1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a
settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a
further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the
bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was
a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of
the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,
settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the
settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was
extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3981
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 W7. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the School certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the caste certificate. Ex.W3 is the Service certificate dated
25.06.1986. Ex.W4 is the service certificate dated 21.04.1989 Ex.W5 is the Panel list. Ex.W6 is the service
certificate dated 11.03.1992. Ex. W7 is the Service certificate dated 26.09.1997.
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
3982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 K. Jayendar, 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3983
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.
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
3984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is
a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the
fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired
and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further
improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony
when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just
and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said
settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the
Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th
Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated
with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do
not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and
in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion
his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority
in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position
and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated
30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and
absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto
31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision
contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on
31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on
merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3985
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..‖
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the
principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction
to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12
calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.
In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the
period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively
answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed
that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification
enacted in Section 25-F"
“14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative
exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra
Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa
Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)
Ltd case, held as under:
"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to
have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service
for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."
In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle
and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment
for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12
calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and
Chapter VA.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies
upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from
the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service 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
3986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Myname was not sponsored by employment exchange. I did not undergo the selection process required for
appointment as messenger..”
“I did not work for 240 days in any year in the bank in my entire service.”
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12
months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore,
Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the
Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in
contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the
Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman
had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any
document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the
Respondent branch on temporary basis.
30.
Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was
terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3987
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996
whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it
was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily
wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on
31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would
lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names
from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided
administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s
affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate
cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.
Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the
Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial
vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were
sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel
of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the
agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank
that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual
employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.
37.
The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for
appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by
appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of
panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as
mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life
of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant
case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th
Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of
India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the
same.
In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors
vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as
temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in
respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of
its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and
appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling
names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly
panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for
3988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel
was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek
permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the
fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,
because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever
conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in
the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first
decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the
5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last
Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in
the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding
nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement
dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has
no legal force and same is untenable.
38.
Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and
State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees
and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms
agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent
appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees
were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel
would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is
allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent
management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The
workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman
herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being
junior to other workmen in the panel list.
39.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied to the bank in response to an advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlements between the union
and the Management…. Further, witness states, The panel was prepared basing on the number of days of service put
in by the temporary employees. Some of the persons whose names were included in the panel were given
appointment on regular basis in the bank…. Further witness states, I am not having any proof or documents to
show that any of my juniors were continued in 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3989
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
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.
3990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of
judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-
“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a
statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.
9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by
reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in
absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely
on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the
Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is
the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not
direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.
46.
In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman
utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period
of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he
would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under
Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.
Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and
few of them are discussed herein:-
In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have
held:-
“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article
14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:
A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt
a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its
instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State
actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and
give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else
that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona
fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of
arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but
providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”
In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,
therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,
―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a
permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not
liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no
temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench
judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the
two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the
requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary
appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the
case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the
Act.”
In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must
consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record
is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”
In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case
of Workman.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 25, 2026/वैिाख 5, 1948
3991
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 K. Jayender, 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 4th day of March, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
3992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2026/VAISAKHA 5, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri K. Jayendar
MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of School certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of caste certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Service certificate dated 25.06.1986
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of service certificate dated 21.04.1989
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of Panel list
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W7:
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
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: 2026.05.12 11:11:32 +05'30'