3676 GI/2026

(5053)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 21]

नई ददल् ली, मई 31—जून 6, 2026, िजनवार/ज् येष् ठ 10—ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

No. 21]

NEW DELHI, MAY 31—JUNE 6, 2026, SATURDAY/JYAISHTHA 10––JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृष् ठ सं्‍ या दी जाती हज जजससे दक यह ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 13 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1070.—बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजधकरण अजधजनयम, 1999 (1999 का 41) की धारा 4

द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, सुश्री िाजलनी ृंजडत के स्ट्थान ृर श्री देबािीष ृृष्टी

(अृर सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों तक,

भारतीय बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजधकरण में अंिकाजलक सदस्ट्य के प ृ में नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा.सं. 6/2(i)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-27062026-273868

CG-DL-W-27062026-273868

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-27062026-273868

CG-DL-W-27062026-273868

5054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2026

S.O. 1070.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Debasish Prusty (Additional

Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as part-time member of the

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice

Ms. Shalini Pandit.

[eF. No. 6/2(i)/2022-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 13 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1071.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृधारा

(3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री प्रिांत कुमार गोयल के स्ट्थान ृर

सुश्री िाजलनी ृंजडत (संयुि सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और

अगले आदेिों तक, केनरा बैंक के बोडज में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(ii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2026

S.O. 1071.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

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

Ms. Shalini Pandit (Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as

Director on the Board of Canara Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Parshant

Kumar Goyal.

[eF. No. 6/2(ii)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 13 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1072.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृधारा

(3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री आलोक ृांडे के स्ट्थान ृर श्री

समीर कुमार (आर्थथक सलाहकार, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले

आदेिों तक, इंजडयन बैंक के बोडज में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(iii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2026

S.O. 1072.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the

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

nominates Shri Samir Kumar (Economic Adviser, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial

Services) as Director on the Board of Indian Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Alok

Pande.

[eF. No. 6/2(iii)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5055

नई ददल्ली, 13 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1073.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की

उृधारा (3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री सुधीर श्याम के स्ट्थान

ृर श्री हरर हर जमश्रा (अृर सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और

अगले आदेिों तक, यूको बैंक के बोडज में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(iv)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2026

S.O. 1073.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

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

Hari Har Mishra (Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services)

as Director on the Board of UCO Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Sudhir Shyam.

[eF. No. 6/2(iv)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 13 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1074.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृधारा

(3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री रोहन चंद ठाकुर के स्ट्थान ृर

श्री देबािीष ृृष्टी (अृर सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले

आदेिों तक, यूजनयन बैंक आफ इंजडया के बोडज में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(v)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2026

S.O. 1074.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

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

Debasish Prusty (Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services)

as Director on the Board of Union Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice

Shri Rohan Chand Thakur.

[eF. No. 6/2(v)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 13 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1075.—भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम अजधजनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की धारा 4(2)(घ) द्वारा

प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, सुश्री िाजलनी ृंजडत के स्ट्थान ृर श्री संजय लोजहया

(जविेष सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों तक,

भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम के बोडज में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(vi/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

5056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2026

S.O. 1075.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4(2)(d) of the Life Insurance Corporation of

India Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Sanjay Lohiya (Special Secretary,

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director on the Board of the Life

Insurance Corporation of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Ms. Shalini Pandit.

[eF. No. 6/2(vi)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 13 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1076.—राष्ट्रीय अवसंरचना जवत्तृोषण और जवकास बैंक अजधजनयम, 2021 (2021 का 17) की धारा

6 की उृधारा (1) के खंड (घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, सुश्री मानसा गंगोत्री

काटा के स्ट्थान ृर सुश्री िाजलनी ृंजडत, संयुि सजचव, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों

तक, राष्ट्रीय अवसंरचना जवत्तृोषण और जवकास बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(x)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2026

S.O. 1076.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the National

Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development Act, 2021 (17 of 2021), the Central Government hereby

nominates Ms. Shalini Pandit, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, as Director on the Board of

Directors of National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development, with immediate effect and until further

orders, vice Ms. Manasa Gangotri Kata.

[eF. No. 6/2(x/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

(जहन्दी-2)

नई ददल्ली, 1 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1077.—केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडज के अधीन जनम्नजलजखत

कायाजलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों एवं कमजचाररयों ने जहन्दी का कायजसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को

अजधसूजचत करती हजैः

क्रम सं.

कायाजलय का नाम

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, मंडल-I, लखनऊ

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, मंडल-II, लखनऊ

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, मंडल-III, लखनऊ

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, मंडल-IV (बाराबंकी), लखनऊ

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, मंडल-सीताृुर, लखनऊ

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-अजधसूचना]

प्रीजत सेलारे, उृ जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5057

(Department of Revenue)

(Hindi-2)

New Delhi, the 1st June, 2026

S.O. 1077.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976 Central Government, hereby, notifies the following offices under Central Board of Indirect

Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of

official language Hindi:

S.No.

Name of the Office

Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Division-I, Lucknow

Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Division-II, Lucknow

Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Division-III, Lucknow

Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Division-IV (Barabanki), Lucknow

Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Division-Sitapur, Lucknow

[F.No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]

PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)

इस्ट्ृात मंत्रालय

(िुजद्वृत्र)

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1078.—केंरीय सरकार, ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजधकार का अजजन)

अजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उृ-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंर सरकार,

इस्ट्ृात मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की उस अजधसूचना में, जो का. आ. 1097(अ) ददनांक 25 फरवरी, 2026 के तहत

प्रकाजित हुई थी और जो भारत के असाधारण राजृत्र अंक सं्‍या 1046 ददनांक 27 फरवरी, 2026 में प्रकाजित हुई थी,

एतद्द्वाराजनम्नजलजखत िुजिृत्र जारी करती हज, जो इस प्रकार हज.

उि अजधसूचना में

क) हहदी अजधसूचना के ृृष्ठ सं्‍या 130 और अंग्रेजी अजधसूचना के ृृष्ठ सं्‍या 149 में, गुंडुृाला गााँव को जहााँ

नरसीृटनम मंडल के अंतगजत दिाजया गया हज, उसे बदलकर गोलुगोंडा मंडल दकया जाना चाजहए।

[फा. सं. एस-28030/4/2024-आरएम (19852)]

अररदम चौधरी, उृ सजचव

MINISTRY OF STEEL

(CORRIGENDUM)

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2026

S.O. 1078—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

makes the following Corrigendum in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel published

vide S.O. No. 1097(E) Dated 25 February, 2026, published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India Issue No. 1046

Dated 27 February, 2026, as under.

In the Said Notification at

a) In Hindi Notification Page No.130 and in English Notification Page No.149 the Gundupala Village noted on

Narsipatnam Mandal it should be replaced as Golugondamandal.

[F. No. S-28030/4/2024-RM (19852)]

ARINDAM CHAUDHARY, Dy. Secy.

5058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1079.—चूंदक केन्र सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता हज दक जनजहत में यह आवश्यक हज दक दकरंदुल से

जविाखाृट्टनम तक स्ट्लरी के प ृ में लौह अयस्ट्क के ृररवहन के जलए आसेलर जमत्तल जनप्ृोन स्ट्टील इंजडया प्राइवेट

जलजमटेड द्वारा छत्तीसगढ़, ओजडिा और आंध्र प्रदेि राज्य से गुजरते हुए ृाइृलाइनें जबछाई जाए।

और चूाँदक ऐसा प्रतीत होता हज दक ऐसी ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के उद्देश्य से, संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्थणत भूजम ृर

उृयोग का अजधकार प्राप्त करना आवश्यक हज।

इसजलए, ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजधकार का अजजन) अजधजनयम-1962

(1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उृधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंरीय सरकार इसके द्वारा उसमें

उृयोग के अजधकार को अजजन करने के अृने इरादे की घोषणा करती हज।

उि अनुसूची में वर्थणत भूजम में चिजच रखने वाला कोई भी यक्जि, इस अजधसूचना के प्रकािन की तारीख से इक्कीस

ददनों के भीतर, भूजम के नीचे ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के संबंध में भारत सरकार के इस्ट्ृात मंत्रालय की अजधसूचना सं्‍या

का.आ. 1874, ददनांक 29 जसतंबर, 2025 में अजधसूजचत सक्षम प्राजधकारी अथाजत, भूजम ृर अजधकाररता रखने वाले

सक्षम प्राजधकारी और जविेष उृ कलेक्टर (एलए) एृीआईआईसी, औद्योजगक एस्ट्टेट, जविाखाृत्तनम को आृजत्त दजज करा

सकता हज।

ऐसी आृजत्त करने वाले प्रत्येक यक्जि को यह भी स्ट्ृष्ट प ृ से बताना होगा दक क्या वह यक्जिगत प ृ से या

जवजध यक्वसायी द्वारा सुनवाई चाहता हज।

‘’अनुसूची’’

मंडल: बुचाय्याृेटा

जजला : अनकाृल्ली

राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेि

क्र.सं.

गााँव का नाम

सवे सं.

क्षेत्रफल

वगीकरण

एकड़-सेंट

वगज-मीटर

सरकारी/जनजी भूजम

ताईृुरम

625

2-31

9349

सरकारीभूजम

राजम

2951

0-01

सरकारीभूजम

नीलकंठृुरम

1228

0-21

850

सरकारीभूजम

[फा. सं. एस-28030/4/2024-आरएम (19852)]

अररदम चौधरी, उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2026

S.O. 1079.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transport of iron ore in the form of slurry from Kirandul to Visakhapatnam, pipelines should be laid, passing

through the state of Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh, by the ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private

Limited.

And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user

in the land described in the schedule annexed hereto.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act-1962(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5059

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date

of publication of this notification object to the laying of the pipelines under the land to the Competent Authority

notified in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel No. S.O.1874 dated the 29^th September,

2025 that is to say, Competent Authority & Special Deputy Collector (LA) APIIC, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam

having Jurisdiction over the land.

Every person making such an objection shall also state specially whether he wishes to be heard in person or

by legal practitioner.

"SCHEDULE"

Mandal: Butchayyapeta

District: Anakapalli

State: Andhra Pradesh

Sl. No.

Name of the Village

Survey No.

Extent

Classification

Acre-Cents

Sq. Mts

Govt./Pvt Land

Typuram

625

2-31

9349

Govt. Land

Rajam

2951

0-01

Govt. Land

Neelakantapuram

1228

0-21

850

Govt. Land

[F. No. S-28030/4/2024-RM (19852]

ARINDAM CHAUDHARY, Dy. Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1080.—चूंदक केन्र सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता हज दक जनजहत में यह आवश्यक हज दक दकरंदुल से

जहााँ तक यह और आवश्यक हज दक लौह अयस्ट्क स्ट्लरी के ृररवहन हेतु ृाइृलाइन जबछाई जाए, जजसे मौजूदा

कॉररडोर से कोय्यप मंडल के कोठगडाबाृालेम गांव की सीमा से नक्काृल्ली मंडल के डोजनवजनलक्ष्मीृुरम तक मोड़कर

आगामी एकीकृत इस्ट्ृात संयत्र को कच्चे माल की आृूर्थत के जलए उृयोग दकया जाएगा।

और चूाँदक ऐसा प्रतीत होता हज दक ऐसी ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के उद्देश्य, संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्थणत भूजम ृर उृयोग

का अजधकार प्राप्त करना आवश्यक हज।

इसजलए, ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजधकार का अजजन) अजधजनयम-1962

उृयोग के अजधकार को अजजन करने के अृने इरादे की घोषणा करती हज।

का.आ. 1874, ददनांक 29 जसतंबर, 2025 में अजधसूजचत सक्षम प्राजधकारी अथाजत, भूजम ृर अजधकार रखने वाले सक्षम

प्राजधकारी और जविेष उृ कलेक्टर (एलए) एृीआईआईसी, औद्योजगक एस्ट्टेट, जविाखाृट्टनम को आृजत्त दजज करा

सकता हज।

ऐसी आृजत्त करने वाले हर यक्जि को यह भी स्ट्ृष्ट प ृ से बताना होगा दक क्या वह यक्जिगत प ृ से या जवजध

यक्वसायी द्वारा सुनवाई चाहता हज।

5060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

" अनुसूची "

मंडल : गोलूगोंडा

जजला : अनकाृल्ली

राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेि

क्र.सं.

गााँव का नाम

सवे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल

वगीकरण

एकड़ - सेंट

वगज-मीटर

सरकारी /जनजी भूजम

ृाकलाृाडु

994

0-01

जनजीभूजम

2029

0-01

जनजीभूजम

चीडीगुम्माला

195

0-09

364

जनजीभूजम

198

0-13

526

जनजीभूजम

971

0-15

607

जनजीभूजम

1010

0-16

648

जनजीभूजम

1002

0-16

648

जनजीभूजम

746

0-29

1174

जनजीभूजम

745

0-05

202

जनजीभूजम

760

0-17

688

जनजीभूजम

गुंडुृाला

0-07

283

सरकारीभूजम

0-61

2469

जनजीभूजम

0-09

364

जनजीभूजम

0-06

243

जनजीभूजम

मंडल: नरसीृट्टनम

गब्बाडा

0-03

121

जनजीभूजम

349

0-01

जनजीभूजम

बलीघट्टम

288

0-04

162

सरकारीभूजम

647

0-10

405

जनजीभूजम

648

0-45

1821

जनजीभूजम

658

0-05

202

जनजीभूजम

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5061

667

0-06

243

सरकारीभूजम

212

0-02

जनजीभूजम

707

1-11

4492

जनजीभूजम

मंडल: कोटाउरटला

ृामुलावाका

0-01

जनजीभूजम

68-9

0-01

जनजीभूजम

मंडल: नक् काृल्ली

रेबाका

131

1-10

4452

जनजीभूजम

0-03

121

सरकारीभूजम

0-01

सरकारीभूजम

0-01

सरकारीभूजम

गुल्लीृाडु

0-01

जनजीभूजम

163

0-43

1740

जनजीभूजम

165

0-41

1659

जनजीभूजम

164

0-66

2671

जनजीभूजम

167

0-16

648

जनजीभूजम

160

0-54

2185

जनजीभूजम

157

0-31

1255

जनजीभूजम

135

0-20

809

जनजीभूजम

136

0-82

3319

जनजीभूजम

137

0-20

809

जनजीभूजम

152

0-84

3399

जनजीभूजम

151

0-02

जनजीभूजम

139

0-49

1983

जनजीभूजम

150

0-11

445

सरकारीभूजम

149

0-61

2469

जनजीभूजम

0-51

2064

जनजीभूजम

5062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

0-77

3116

जनजीभूजम

0-10

405

जनजीभूजम

0-01

जनजीभूजम

[फा. सं. एस-28030/4/2024-आरएम (19852)]

अररदम चौधरी, उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2026

S.O. 1080.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transport of iron ore in the form of slurry from Kirandul to Visakhapatnam, pipelines should be laid, passing

through the state of Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh, by the ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private

Limited.

Whereas it is further necessary that pipelines should be laid for transport of iron ore slurry, by diverting from

existing corridor from the village limits of Kothagadabapalem of Koyyuru Mandal, up to Donivanilakshmipuram of

Nakkapalli Mandal, for supply of raw material to the upcoming Integrated Steel Plant.

And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user

in the land described in the schedule annexed hereto.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act-1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date

of publication of this notification object to the laying of the pipelines under the land to the Competent Authority

notified in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel No. S.O.1874 dated the 29^th September,

2025 that is to say, Competent Authority & Special Deputy Collector (LA) APIIC, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam

having Jurisdiction over the land.

Every person making such an objection shall also state specially whether he wishes to be heard in person or

by legal practitioner.

"SCHEDULE"

Mandal: Golugonda

District: Anakapalli

State: Andhra Pradesh

Sl. No.

Name of the Village

Survey No.

Extent

Classification

Acre-Cents

Sq. Mts

Govt./Pvt Land

Pakalapadu

994

0-01

Private Land

2029

0-01

Private Land

Cheedigummala

195

0-09

364

Private Land

198

0-13

526

Private Land

971

0-15

607

Private Land

1010

0-16

648

Private Land

1002

0-16

648

Private Land

746

0-29

1174

Private Land

745

0-05

202

Private Land

760

0-17

688

Private Land

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5063

Gundupala

0-07

283

Govt. Land

0-61

2469

Private Land

0-09

364

Private Land

0-06

243

Private Land

Mandal: Narsipatnam

Gabbada

0-03

121

Private Land

349

0-01

Private Land

Balighattam

288

0-04

162

Govt. Land

647

0-10

405

Private Land

648

0-45

1821

Private Land

658

0-05

202

Private Land

667

0-06

243

Govt. Land

212

0-02

Private Land

707

1-11

4492

Private Land

Mandal: Kotauratla

Pamulavaka

0-01

Private Land

68-9

0-01

Private Land

Mandal: Nakkapalli

Rebaka

131

1-10

4452

Private Land

0-03

121

Govt. Land

0-01

Govt. Land

0-01

Govt. Land

Gullipadu

0-01

Private Land

163

0-43

1740

Private Land

165

0-41

1659

Private Land

164

0-66

2671

Private Land

167

0-16

648

Private Land

160

0-54

2185

Private Land

157

0-31

1255

Private Land

135

0-20

809

Private Land

136

0-82

3319

Private Land

137

0-20

809

Private Land

152

0-84

3399

Private Land

151

0-02

Private Land

139

0-49

1983

Private Land

5064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

150

0-11

445

Govt. Land

149

0-61

2469

Private Land

0-51

2064

Private Land

0-77

3116

Private Land

0-10

405

Private Land

0-01

Private Land

[F. No S-28030/4/2024-RM (19852)]

ARINDAM CHAUDHARY, Dy. Secy.

नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 22 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1081.—केन्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग), जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम-10 के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय के अंतगजत भारतीय जवमानृत्तन प्राजधकरण के

अधीनस्ट्थ कायाजलय जसजवल एन्क्लेव हहडन, जसकंदरृुर रोड, साजहबाबाद, गाजजयाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेि- 201005, जजसके 80

प्रजतित कार्थमकों ने हहदी का कायजसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को एतद्द्वारा अजधसूजचत करती हज।

[फा. सं. ई. 11014/2/2023-रा.भा.)]

अजमत राय, वररष्ठ आर्थथक सलाहकार

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2026

S.O. 1081.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies that the subordinate office of Airports

Authority of India, Civil Enclave Hindon, Sikandarpur Road, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 201005 under

Ministry of Civil Aviation, whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No.E-11014/2/2023-OL)]

AMIT RAY, Senior Economic Advisor

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 26 मई , 2026

का.आ. 1082.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मजससज यूनाइटेड इंजडया इंश्योरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और भारतीय बीमा कमजचारी

सेना के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-

51/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

26.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17011/3/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 51/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Bhartiya Vima Karmachari Sena which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 26.05.2026.

[No. L-17011/3/2018-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5065

ANNEXURE

BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

Presiding Officer/Link Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/51 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

First Party No.1. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

The Chairman & Managing Director,

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Head Office,

24 Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014,

State: Tamil Nadu.

First Party No.2. The Chief Regional Manager.

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Ambica House,

190, Dharampeth Extention,

Nagpur (MS) – 440 010,

State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Bhartiya Vima Karmachari Sena)

The President,

Bhartiya Vima Karmachari Sena

―Ganraj‖ Sambhappa Colony,

Chitod Road,

At/Post & Tal. Dhul – 424 001,

State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management No.1&2

Ms. Nandini G. Menon.

Advocate

Workmen/union :

No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 11-03-2026)

This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L- 17011/3/2018-IR(M) dated 29.10.2018. The terms of

reference given in the schedule are as follows:

5066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the Management of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai/Nagpur in:-

Not offering Gr.1 Post to Shri S. K. Khairnar since 1992 though he was eligible;

Not giving him promotion as Adm. Officer in Class-I category with effect from 1999; and

Not paying him revised entertainment allowance, leave encashment for 2007 and LTS for 2003 and 2005;

is justified? If not, what relief Shri S. K. Khairnar is entitled to and from what date?”

The case is called out today. Both parties are absent on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent

that, both parties are not responding and attending the Court since 23.11.2020 long back. Although Statement of

Claim has been filed by the petitioner but no Written Statement has been filed by the respondent till today. No other

evidence has been filed by the petitioner till today to prove the contents of his Statement of Claim. The

petitioner/union is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner/union is not interested to

contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/union is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the Management of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai/Nagpur in:-

Not offering Gr.1 Post to Shri S. K. Khairnar since 1992 though he was eligible;

Not giving him promotion as Adm. Officer in Class-I category with effect from 1999; and

Not paying him revised entertainment allowance, leave encashment for 2007 and LTS for 2003 and

2005;

is justified. Shri S. K. Khairnar is not entitled to any relief.

Date: 11-03-2026

Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई ददल्ली, 26 मई , 2026

का.आ. 1083.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार आददत्य जबड़ला सन लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री राम कृृाल हसह के

बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, धनबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.- 2/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 26.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-50]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 2/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited and Sri Ram Kripal Singh which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 26.05.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-(IR(M)-50)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5067

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

ID Case No. 02/2018

Ram Kripal Singh

S/o Umesh Prasad Singh

Ex-Employee of Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.………….……………………………….Applicant

Vs.

C.M.D., Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. ltd.

C.E.O., Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. ltd., Mumbai

V.P. & Head-Sales HR, Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance

Co. ltd., Mumbai

Regional Manager, Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co.

ltd., Patna

Zonal H.R. Manager, Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co.

ltd., Kolkata .……Opp. Parties

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Applicant

:- None.

For Opp. Party

:- Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Insurance

Dated 24/03/2026

AWARD

2. This case has been filed under section 2A of the I.D Act, 1947 by the applicant/workman namely Ram Kripal

Singh on 18.05.2018.

3. After receipt of this ID case on 18.05.2018 regd. notice was issued to Opp. Party and both parties appeared

previously after that applicant failed to appear before this Tribunal. Thereafter on 08.10.2025 Sri D.K. Verma,

Advocate on behalf of the Opp. Party appeared and submitted that applicant is not present since 2021 so case may

be closed.

4. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that the applicant has lost his interest in this case and

therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to be dismissed.

5. Hence,

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the above ID 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 ददल्ली, 26 मई , 2026

का.आ. 1084.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससज सेल-बोकारो स्ट्टील प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और उनके कमजचारी के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, धनबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 39/2013) को जजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 26.05.2026 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/42/2013-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

5068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s. SAIL-Bokaro Steel Plant and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 26.05.2026.

[No. L-29011/42/2013-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Reference Case No. 39/2013

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. SAIL-Bokaro Steel

Plant, B.S. City, Bokaro

AND

Their Workmen

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :-Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

For the workmen :-Sri K.K. Mishra, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Steel

Dated 23/03/2026

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.L-29011/42/2013-IR(M) dated 26/08/2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer

i.e. management of SAIL-Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City, Bokaro and their workman through General Secretary,

Bokaro Steel Worker‘s Union, B.S. City, Bokaro for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL in not paying 20% special

allowance to the workers, working in Bokaro General Hospital is legal and justified? What relief the

workmen are entitled to?‖

LIST OF NEXE IN SERVICE RULE (filed by the union)

STNO

NAME

GRADE

CLS

DESDESCP

APTT_DT

SEN_DT

RET_DT

280107

SHASHI

KANT

KUMAR SINHA

S11

CHIEF

PHARMACIST

11-08-73

31-12-04

31-08-14

325416

VIDYA SAGAR

KUMAR

S11

CHIEF

PHARMACIST

26-08-74

31-12-04

31-08-14

338211

YADU

NANDAN

PRASAD

S11

CHIEF

PHARMACIST

14-02-75

31-12-04

31-08-14

381210

SHAUKAT ALI

S11

CHIEF

PHARMACIST

09-11-77

31-12-04

30-11-14

392093

UPENDRA

NARAYAN

SINGH

S10

MULTI

SKLD

TECH

19-06-78

30-06-11

31-07-16

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5069

401224

PRATIMA

ROY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

10-11-78

31-12-07

31-03-15

410746

ADITYA

KUMAR

S10

DRESSER

15-01-79

31-12-13

31-01-15

414342

BLANDINA

TUDU

S11

NURSING

SISTER

04-01-80

31-12-07

30-11-14

439499

JAI

KANT

SINGH

S11

CHIEF

PHARMACIST

26-07-80

31-12-04

31-01-16

453522

JWALA

PRASAD

S11

PHARMACIST

24-07-80

30-06-05

31-01-17

453530

SATISH

KUMAR

PRASAD

S11

PHARMACIST

03-11-80

30-06-05

31-03-17

459778

YADU

NANDAN

PRASAD

S11

STENOGRAPHE

06-04-81

30-06-05

30-11-15

467276

K. S. N. NAIR

S11

X-RAY

TECHN

30-04-81

31-12-10

31-01-16

469892

PHOOL

HASSAN

S11

LAB

TECHNICIAN

28-10-81

31-12-10

31-01-15

484965

KAUSHAL

KISHOR

MISHRA

DRESSER

12-12-81

31-12-10

30-11-17

491514

USHA

RAJ

MOHAN

S11

NURSING

SISTER

12-12-81

31-12-09

31-03-16

491522

MEENA SINHA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

12-12-81

31-12-09

31-10-18

491564

FLORENCE

KISKU

S11

NURSING

SISTER

12-12-81

31-12-09

28-02-17

491697

THRESIAMMA

RAJAN

S11

NURSING

SISTER

12-12-81

31-12-09

31-08-17

491762

ROSHAN

CHAKRABORT

S11

NURSING

SISTER

05-11-75

31-12-09

31-01-15

502220

RADHE SHYAM

SINHA

S11

CHIEF

PHARMACIST

16-08-82

31-12-04

31-05-16

606642

MAHBOOB

ANSARI

MESS/JR TECH

15-10-82

30-06-12

28-02-17

611104

SUSARI GURIA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-12-82

31-12-09

30-06-18

620337

LAKSHMI

BHATTACHAR

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-12-82

31-12-09

31-08-19

620353

TAPTI DAS

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-12-82

31-12-09

28-02-18

620379

PRABHAWATI

BARLA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-12-82

31-12-09

30-11-17

620387

REMONY

MATHEW

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-12-82

31-12-09

31-03-20

620402

RASHMI

MATHAI

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-12-82

31-12-09

30-11-17

620444

SARAMMA

SAMUEL

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-12-82

31-12-09

31-05-21

5070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

620460

JAYANTI

SATYAM

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-12-82

31-12-09

31-10-19

620478

KOCHUTHRESI

A GEORGE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

26-08-83

31-12-09

31-05-20

642753

SUSHILA

GAGRAI

S11

NURSING

SISTER

01-11-83

31-12-09

31-10-16

644048

SAMIRENDRA

NATH

BHATTACHARJ

S11

S/MED

SOCL

W/C

24-10-83

31-12-09

31-05-14

644220

SARAMMA

BABY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-83

31-12-09

31-01-20

644337

NANDITA ROY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-83

31-12-09

30-11-15

644353

ESRAN MALWA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-83

31-12-09

31-12-16

644379

REGINA

VINCENTIA

KERKETTA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-83

31-12-09

31-05-15

644395

DIPALI

CHOWDHURY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

25-10-83

31-12-09

30-09-19

644410

SAROJ KUJUR

S11

NURSING

SISTER

02-12-83

31-12-09

31-12-18

644741

ASHA

VENUGOPAL

S11

NURSING

SISTER

02-12-83

31-12-09

31-05-17

644759

SANTHAMMA

KAITHAKUZHY

IL GOPAL

S11

NURSING

SISTER

06-12-83

31-12-09

31-01-15

644808

RAMAWATAR

PRASAD

S11

CHIEF

PHARMACIST

15-12-83

31-12-05

31-10-14

644832

NELI BARLA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

05-12-83

31-12-09

31-10-17

644866

NILMANI TIRU

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

31-12-09

30-04-20

647092

SALY

SEBASTIAN

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

30-06-22

647117

MARIAMMA

VARGHESE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

30-06-19

647125

KALPANA

GHOSH

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

30-04-18

647133

KRISHNA

GHOSH

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

30-11-18

647167

AGNESIA

LINDA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

30-04-20

647183

SHEELA

SRIDHARAN

NAIR

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

31-01-22

647216

KUMUDINI

KERKETTA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

30-06-19

647240

SUNITA

TIWARI

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

28-02-22

647258

BINITA

THAKUR

S11

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-84

30-06-10

31-05-17

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5071

647414

FRANCISCA

KUJUR

S11

NURSING

SISTER

27-02-84

30-06-10

30-11-15

647836

THRESIAMMA

JOSE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

27-02-84

30-06-10

28-02-17

647844

MARY JOSEPH

S11

NURSING

SISTER

29-02-84

30-06-10

31-03-20

647860

ANNA

MATILDA

SURIN

S11

NURSING

SISTER

06-04-84

30-06-10

30-06-17

648454

RAMASWAMY

LATA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

26-09-84

30-06-10

31-07-21

650037

NILIMA

BANDOPADHY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

26-09-84

31-12-10

31-01-19

650045

ROUSHAN

JAHAN ANSARI

S11

NURSING

SISTER

26-09-84

31-12-10

31-03-19

650053

INDIRA

KONCHAKUZH

YIL

PRAVAKARAN

S11

NURSING

SISTER

28-05-85

31-12-10

31-07-20

655582

RAMA

RANI

BANERJEE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

28-05-85

30-06-11

30-11-22

655615

LILLY

SUSHANTI

SURESH

S11

NURSING

SISTER

28-05-85

30-06-11

30-11-19

655623

ALEYAMMA

JOSEPH

S11

NURSING

SISTER

28-05-85

30-06-11

28-02-22

655631

USHA

KIRAN

PRASAD

S11

NURSING

SISTER

28-05-85

30-06-11

30-04-23

655657

ROSAMMA

JAMES

S11

NURSING

SISTER

28-05-85

30-06-11

31-07-22

655665

ALCY

KUTTY

THOMAS

S11

NURSING

SISTER

28-05-85

30-06-11

31-10-19

655673

ROSHNI

KHALKHO

S11

NURSING

SISTER

28-05-85

30-06-11

31-01-23

655681

SUSAN

MATHAIKUTTY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

16-04-86

30-06-11

28-02-22

661167

ASHA SHARMA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

16-04-86

31-12-11

31-12-19

661175

PUSH

PAMMA

TOMY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

16-04-86

31-12-11

30-09-23

661208

SANGITA

CHATTERJEE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

16-04-86

31-12-11

31-03-23

661224

CELINE KOSHY

VARGHESE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

16-04-86

31-12-11

31-05-23

661240

SUBHRA

MANNA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

16-04-86

31-12-11

31-10-19

661307

ANNA

SASIDHARAN

SAM

S11

NURSING

SISTER

11-11-86

31-12-11

31-12-19

664020

UPENDRA

KUMAR

S11

PHARMACIST

11-11-86

31-12-07

28-02-17

664038

HEM CHANDRA

SINGH

S11

PHARMACIST

11-11-86

31-12-07

31-10-17

5072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

664046

SURESH

KUMAR

S11

WARD KEEPER

13-11-86

31-12-07

30-09-21

664062

SATYA

DEO

PRASAD

S10

LAB

TECHNICIAN

13-11-86

31-12-09

31-05-17

664070

BINODA NAND

SINHA

S10

LAB

TECHNICIAN

25-05-87

31-12-09

31-01-23

665755

BIJAY KUMAR

S11

PHARMACIST

19-05-87

30-06-08

31-12-22

665763

NARESH

PRASAD

MAHTO

S11

PHARMACIST

15-06-87

30-06-08

31-03-23

665888

LYSAMMA

GEORGE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

15-06-87

30-06-12

31-05-25

665929

LIZY

VARGHESE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

17-06-87

30-06-12

31-01-23

665937

CHANDESHWA

R SAH

S11

PHARMACIST

10-06-87

30-06-08

31-10-21

665987

NILMADHAB

SEN

S11

PHARMACIST

24-06-87

30-06-08

31-12-19

666000

MANJU

MAZUMDAR

S11

NURSING

SISTER

22-06-87

30-06-12

30-11-22

666018

BANANI SAHA

S11

TUTOR

22-06-87

30-06-12

30-11-20

666026

SAMPA

MALLICK

S11

NURSING

SISTER

06-11-87

30-06-12

31-05-24

673203

VIJAYAM

RAMACHANDR

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

31-12-12

30-06-24

674946

KABITA

BANERJEE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

31-01-23

674954

SUMITA DAS

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

31-05-25

674996

LEELEMMA

JOHN

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

28-02-23

675001

BHARATI

GANGULY

S11

TUTOR

07-04-88

30-06-13

30-09-22

675019

CHANDRA

GHOSH

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

28-02-26

675043

ALEYAMMA

VIJAY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

31-01-21

675051

SWAPNA

MANDAL

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

30-09-21

675069

REKHA SAHA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

30-09-22

675077

ANJALI

MISHRA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

31-01-22

100

675085

SHEEKHA RANI

DEY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

31-03-24

101

675100

REBA ROY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

31-03-25

102

675118

VALSALA

THULASIDHAR

AN PILLAI

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

31-12-22

103

675134

SUKLA SINHA

S11

NURSING

07-04-88

30-06-13

30-11-24

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5073

SISTER

104

675142

UMA MONDAL

S11

NURSING

SISTER

07-04-88

30-06-13

31-05-25

105

675150

SOSAMMA

ALEX

S11

NURSING

SISTER

03-11-88

30-06-13

30-11-21

106

675598

BABY

ACHARYA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-08-89

31-12-13

31-03-24

107

676827

CELINE JOHN

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-08-89

31-12-13

31-03-26

108

676877

DIPA SARKAR

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-08-89

31-12-13

30-04-24

109

676885

MARY

VARGHESE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-08-89

31-12-13

28-02-27

110

676900

DAISY JOY

S11

NURSING

SISTER

30-08-89

31-12-13

31-03-24

111

676918

NEETA SHEE

S11

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-13

31-01-25

112

677023

RAJAMMA

VISWANATHA

S11

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

30-06-10

31-12-23

113

679045

SHIBANI

MUKHERJEE

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

31-03-27

114

679053

ANUSHREE

ROY

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

30-06-25

115

679087

LATHA MADHU

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

30-09-24

116

679095

SHIKHA

CHAKRABORT

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

31-05-24

117

679110

KANAK DURGA

MAHAPATRA

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

30-11-25

118

679128

MANI

AMMA

ROY

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

31-07-26

119

679136

ALIAMMA

PHILIPOSE

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

31-03-27

120

679178

DEEPTY RAY

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

31-10-25

121

679201

JAYA RAJU

S10

NURSING

SISTER

24-10-90

31-12-09

31-08-23

122

679219

SUBHRA ROY

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-11-90

31-12-09

31-12-27

123

679227

MARY PHILIP

S10

NURSING

SISTER

13-11-90

31-12-09

31-01-27

124

680282

SWAPANA

JAISWAL

S10

NURSING

SISTER

12-12-90

31-12-11

30-06-24

125

680290

AJIT

KUMAR

SINHA

S11

PHARMACIST

09-01-91

30-06-12

30-04-27

126

681941

GHAN SHYAM

SHARMA

S10

X-RAY

TECHN

09-01-91

30-06-12

31-12-24

127

682428

KRISHNA

YADAV

S11

PHARMACIST

10-01-91

31-12-10

31-05-20

128

682444

TANUJA

CHOUDHARY

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-01-91

30-06-10

30-09-18

5074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

129

682519

MARIAM

SURIN

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-01-91

30-06-10

31-03-23

130

682527

SUSMITA

SINGO MURMU

S10

NURSING

SISTER

23-01-91

30-06-12

31-05-18

131

682569

LALAN KUMAR

SINHA

S11

PHARMACIST

30-01-91

30-06-12

31-05-23

132

682650

RASH

BIHARI

PRASAD SINHA

S11

PHARMACIST

12-02-91

30-06-10

31-01-18

133

682767

SHAILA

MANORMA

KHALKHO

S10

NURSING

SISTER

20-02-91

30-06-10

30-04-18

134

682866

EDITH BARWA

S10

NURSING

SISTER

22-03-91

30-06-10

31-01-25

135

682907

RENU J MINZ

S10

NURSING

SISTER

29-03-91

30-06-12

31-10-28

136

683179

PANNA

LAL

PRASAD

S10

SR LAB TECHN

23-04-91

30-06-12

30-04-25

137

683187

BIBEKANANDA

MUKHERJEE

S10

SR LAB TECHN

30-04-91

30-06-10

28-02-17

138

683492

FULMANI

TOPPO

S10

NURSING

SISTER

29-04-91

30-06-12

30-09-16

139

683898

ASHIS KUMAR

CHAKRABORT

S11

MASTER(SG)

02-05-91

30-06-10

30-11-20

140

683939

ASIYAN

BAHALEN

TOPNO

S10

NURSING

SISTER

15-04-91

30-06-10

31-08-22

141

683955

JIRAN

PAUL

PARDHIYA

S10

NURSING

SISTER

29-05-91

30-06-10

31-10-22

142

684432

BERONICA

KHESS

S10

NURSING

SISTER

16-06-91

30-06-10

31-01-22

143

684599

STELLA

TIRKEY

S10

NURSING

SISTER

13-06-91

30-06-12

31-01-20

144

684680

RAYMOND

PASCHAL

S10

X-RAY

TECHN

20-11-93

30-06-10

31-01-27

145

684698

EMERENCIA

KIRO

S10

NURSING

SISTER

20-11-93

31-12-11

30-09-30

146

688278

KAULESHWAR

CHAUDHARY

LAB

TECHNICIAN

20-11-93

31-12-11

30-06-32

147

688286

MANOJ KUMAR

OJHA

LAB

TECHNICIAN

14-05-92

31-12-11

31-12-25

148

688294

JAGAR

NATH

RAJAK

LAB

TECHNICIAN

14-05-92

30-06-11

30-09-25

149

691156

SANGEETA

MUNDA

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-05-25

150

691164

AMBIKA

BALACHANDR

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

29-02-28

151

691180

MARYAMMA

BABU

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

30-09-28

152

691213

SHAILA

JOHNSON

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-05-29

153

691255

BEENA SABU

S10

NURSING

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-05-24

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5075

SISTER

154

691263

ALEYAMMA

JESTO

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

30-06-27

155

691271

THRESIAMMA

EZHUTHUPURA

YIL JOSE

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

30-06-25

156

691289

PRATIMA

TOPPO

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

30-06-24

157

691297

ANITA TOPPO

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-12-24

158

691304

PUSPA

KANTI

KINDO

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-05-24

159

691312

MEWA PUSHPA

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-05-25

160

691320

NEERA SATISH

KUMAR

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-05-28

161

691346

UMA

DEVI

UNNIKRISHNA

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-01-26

162

691354

RAJESHWARI

SURESH

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-13

31-12-24

163

691362

ABHA KUJUR

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-01-25

164

691370

KABITA

DESHMUKH

S10

NURSING

SISTER

14-05-92

30-06-11

31-05-29

165

691396

NUTAN AMRIT

S10

NURSING

SISTER

27-05-92

30-06-11

30-04-28

166

691403

RAJALAKSHMI

SURESH

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-11

30-09-25

167

G91883

JAYASHRI

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

31-12-11

31-01-26

168

752742

NUTAN RUNDA

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

30-11-26

169

752776

MEETA

SARKAR

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

30-06-29

170

752817

ILLA BAXLA

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

28-02-29

171

752825

TANDRA BOSE

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

30-09-29

172

752833

CECILIA

TIRKEY

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

31-08-27

173

752859

MOUSUMI

GHOSH

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

31-12-28

174

752867

LALITA

KUMARI

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

31-03-26

175

752883

ANITHA VINAY

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

30-04-27

176

752916

RETNAMMA

RAJAN

S10

NURSING

SISTER

30-06-94

30-06-13

31-01-25

177

752924

VALSALA

JOSEPH

S10

NURSING

SISTER

19-08-94

30-06-13

31-05-30

178

752966

BIRSI TIGGA

S10

NURSING

SISTER

19-08-94

31-12-13

28-02-29

5076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

179

753188

SHEEBA

SURESH

S10

NURSING

SISTER

26-10-94

31-12-13

31-01-16

180

753287

PURNIMA

SINGH

S10

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

30-04-31

181

753641

NIHAR

KANTI

SINGH

S10

RADIO

THERA/TEC

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-01-30

182

754920

MOYNA

MONDAL

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-10-28

183

754946

SHIRANJEET

KAUR CHADHA

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-01-28

184

754954

MOW SINGH

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

30-06-29

185

754962

ARCHANA

KUMAR

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-01-29

186

754988

MADHU SINGH

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-01-29

187

754996

SUMAN

PANDIT

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

30-04-30

188

755027

JILANTI MINZ

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

30-04-30

189

755051

USHA

RANI

MOHANTY

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-05-30

190

755069

SUDHA GIRI

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-05-29

191

755077

SRI DEVI

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-12-28

192

755093

SUSHILA

PASWAN

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-01-31

193

755100

SHUBHA

PRAKASH

NURSING

SISTER

26-12-95

31-12-10

31-12-24

194

755118

RAJITA EKKA

NURSING

SISTER

08-10-97

31-12-10

31-01-24

195

755134

MADHU

BANI

MINZ

NURSING

SISTER

17-10-97

31-12-12

31-05-26

196

759566

SUSHMA

KUMARI

NURSING

SISTER

18-10-97

31-12-12

31-07-31

197

759615

NILAM

KUMARI

NURSING

SISTER

18-10-97

31-12-12

30-09-33

198

759623

KANCHAN

KUMARI

NURSING

SISTER

20-10-97

31-12-12

28-02-27

199

759631

SWAMYNATHA

SREEJA

VENUGOPAL

NURSING

SISTER

23-10-97

31-12-12

31-03-28

200

759649

GOPA DEY

NURSING

SISTER

17-12-97

31-12-12

30-06-22

201

759681

MONIKA

TIGGA

NURSING

SISTER

29-06-98

31-12-13

31-07-25

202

759847

VIKASH

KUMAR

KATIYAR

S10

ORTHOPIST

10-08-98

30-06-12

31-03-26

203

760208

JAYANTA

GHOSH

TECHN/X-RAY

08-12-98

31-12-12

31-01-29

204

760448

LAKSHMI

TECHN/X-RAY

08-12-98

31-12-13

31-05-27

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5077

KANTA DIAN

205

760860

TERESA MINJ

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

31-01-30

206

760878

MARIAM

BHENGRA

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

30-06-32

207

760886

KISHORI

PRABHA

KUJUR

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

31-12-30

208

760894

SITA KUMARI

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

30-09-30

209

760901

PRASAN KUJUR

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

31-10-30

210

760919

ANU VERMA

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

31-05-31

211

760927

GITALI

MALLICK

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

31-07-29

212

760935

MANJU

KUMARI

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

31-03-31

213

760943

MANJIT RANI

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

29-02-32

214

760951

BABITA

KUMARI

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

30-11-30

215

760969

URMILA

PRASAD

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

30-06-33

216

760993

SARASWATI

DEEP

NURSING

SISTER

08-12-98

31-12-13

31-08-30

217

761008

RENU KUMARI

NURSING

SISTER

—

31-12-13

—

218

761032

ANITA DEVI

NURSING

SISTER

—

31-12-13

—

It is relevant to mention that previously this Reference Case No. 39/2013 was decided vide Award dated

20.04.2017 passed by this Tribunal and the same was confirmed by the Single Bench of the Hon‘ble Jharkhand High

Court in a W.P. (L) No. 4675 of 2017 but in L.P.A. No. 737 of 2023 the Hon‘ble Jharkhand High Court were pleased

to set aside the Award passed by this Tribunal as well as order of the Hon‘ble Single Bench and the case was

remanded to this Industrial Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the materials already on the record.

The case of the workman is that Bokaro Steel Plant (BSP) is one of the units of Steel Authority of India

Limited and engaged in manufacture of iron and steel. It is a public sector undertaking and its employees are

governed and guided by Service Rules, Standing Orders and Executive Orders issued from time to time. Bokaro Steel

Worker‘s Union is a registered union and is espousing for the cause of the workers from time to time and has entered

into several agreements with the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant for betterment and improvement of working

conditions of the workmen of Bokaro Steel Plant. The employees of BSP working in Bokaro General Hospital,

particularly Nursing and Para Medical Staff are governed by the Service Rules of BSP. It has been admitted by the

Management of Bokaro Steel Plant during conciliation proceedings dated 21.11.2012 that the employees of Bokaro

Steel Plant working in Bokaro General Hospital are governed by Service Rules and these employees have been

getting all the benefits under the same. It is submitted that the non-executive employees of Bokaro Steel Plant who are

covered under the Service Rules are required to perform duties from Monday to Friday from 09:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.

with one hour lunch break and on Saturdays from 09:30 A.M. to 01:00 P.M. So the duty hours of employees of BSP

who are governed by Service Rules is 36 hours in a week. This can be further seen from the circular no. GM

(P&A)/2008-7267 dated 12.12.2008 issued by GM (P&A) of BSP categorically clarifying the working hours of the

non-executive employees governed by Standing Orders and Service Rules as follows:

Standing Orders

: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

(with half an hour lunch break)

Service Rules

: Monday to Friday : 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

5078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(with one hour lunch break)

: Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Although the Nursing and Para Medical Staff of Bokaro General Hospital are covered under Service Rules, they are

working for 48 hours in a week and are also performing shift-wise duties. Thus it is very much clear that the Nursing

and Para Medical Staff of Bokaro General Hospital are performing 12 hours additional duty every week compared to

other employees who are also governed by the Service Rules of Bokaro Steel Plant. Similarly placed employees i.e.

employees who are governed by Service Rules and working in the Sales Accounts (Invoice Group) and EDP centre of

Bokaro Steel Plant and who are required to work for 48 hours in a week in shifts are paid 20% of their Basic Pay and

D.A. as special allowance to compensate for the extension/change in working hours from 36 to 48 hours. They are

also getting incentive and reward in addition to the aforesaid allowance of 20% of Basic Pay and D.A. Nursing and

Para Medical Staff of Bokaro General Hospital are not compensated for the additional work of 12 hours in a week

which they are doing whereas similarly placed employees who are working in the Sales Accounts (Invoice Group)

and EDP Centre of BSP governed by Service Rules and who are required to work for 48 hours in a week in shifts are

paid 20% of their Basic Pay and D.A. as special allowance to compensate for the extension/change in working hours

from 36 to 48 hours. Bokaro Steel Plant had frozen the special allowance which was paid to these employees working

in the Sales Accounts (Invoice Group) and EDP Centre of BSP by issuing an Inter Office Correspondence dated

20.12.1991 resulting in an Industrial Dispute between the management of BSP and the employees which was

adjudicated by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi vide Reference Case No. 04/1998 by passing an

award in favour of the affected employees. The employees of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant are governed by the provisions

of standing order and service rules. There are differences of benefits between the employees governed under the

Service Rules and Standing Order which are as follows:-

Sl. No.

Service Rule

Standing Order

Leave

Earned Leave

30 days per year

20 days per year

Casual Leave

15 days per year

10 days per year

Restricted Holidays

09 days per year

05 days per year

Close Holiday

6+1 days per year

03 days per year

Leave encashment against Earned Leave

after retirement having maximum limit

300 days

190 days

Half Pay Leave after retirement

240 days

120 days

Incentive/Reward

36% to 50%

50% to 90%

Nursing and Para Medical Staff of Bokaro General Hospital are deprived of their genuine legal rights for a long time

and are exploited through unfair labour practice by the management company in violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution. The Nursing and Para Medical Staff of B.G.H. are getting all the benefits of service rules but they have

been deliberately deprived of their right of 20% of their basic pay and D.A. as special allowance to compensate their

working hours from 36 to 48 hours and also for working in shift wise duty and at last it was submitted to pass an

award directing the management of BSP to pay special allowance of 20% of the basic pay and D.A. to the Nursing

and Para Medical Staff of B.G.H. at par with similarly placed workmen working in the Sales Accounts (Invoice

Group) and EDP Centre from the date of their joining.

On the other hand the case of the management as per written statement filed on 26.11.2014 is that the

reference is not maintainable. The names of the workmen concerned are not incorporated along with the order of

reference and in the absence of the same the present reference is indefinite and vague and is not valid for adjudication.

Since the inception of Bokaro General Hospital and introduction of shift wise duty the employees of B.G.H. whose

service conditions are governed by Service Rules have been performing 48 hours duty in a week. The employees

working at B.G.H. have been performing 48 hours duty in a week i.e. 8 hours duty per shift since the date of joining

in B.G.H. of Bokaro Steel Plant. The workmen of Bokaro Steel Plant who have been working 48 hours duty in a week

are entitled to get enhanced incentive and reward of 50%. The workmen working at B.G.H. are also getting enhanced

incentive and reward of 50% whereas the workmen working less than 48 hours in a week are getting 36% of incentive

and reward. The management never changed the service conditions of the workmen who are working at B.G.H. from

Service Rule to Standing Order as such there has not been any violation of the provisions of Section 9A of the I.D.

Act, 1947. The employees of Bokaro General Hospital whose services are governed by the provisions of service rules

are enjoying all facilities including leave applicable to Service Rules. It is evident that employees of B.G.H. governed

by Service Rules have been getting all the benefits of Service Rules. They have also been getting enhanced incentive

and reward of 50% which is applicable for the employees working for 48 hours in a week for several years. The

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5079

demand made by the sponsoring union for payment of 20% special allowance to the workers working in Bokaro

General Hospital is neither legal nor justified and therefore it was prayed to hold that the action of the management of

Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL in not paying 20% special allowance to the workers working in Bokaro General Hospital is

legal and justified and that the workmen concerned are not entitled to get any relief. By way of rejoinder the

management has stated that the statement made in Para 1 and 2 of the W/S of union is matter of record and the

statement of Para-3 is not relevant. The statement made in Para-4 of the W/S is not correct. Majority non-executive

employees working in B.G.H. are governed by Standing Orders. Few old employees are governed by Service Rules. It

is relevant to mention that the names of workmen is not mentioned either before Conciliation Office nor the Ministry

referred the names of the workmen concerned along with the order of reference and therefore the question referred by

the Ministry is vague and indefinite. The statement of Para-5, 6 and 8 of the W/S are not correct. Circular dated

12.12.2008 was specifically applicable to executives/non-executives posted in Ispat Bhawan Complex, T&D Centre,

Nagar Sewa Bhawan and its allied offices other than those in shifts. Since the inception of B.G.H. and introduction of

shift wise duty, the employees of B.G.H. have been performing 48 hours duty in a week i.e. 8 hours duty per shift and

accordingly they have been getting enhanced incentive and reward of 50%. The statements made in Para-7 and Para-9

of the W/S are not relevant. The fact of the reference no. 4 of 1998 is different and more over the finding of the State

Industrial Tribunal is not binding to this Tribunal as the facts of both the cases are different. The statement made in

Para-10 of the W/S of union is matter of record and that of Para-11 and 12 are not correct and there is no merit in the

W/S of the union so prayed to reject the same.

A rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the workmen to the W/S of the management in which they have

denied all the claims and stand taken by the management and further repeated the stand taken by them in their

statement of claim.

In support of their case the workmen have examined WW-1 Ghanshyam Sharma, WW-2 Baby Acharya and

WW-3 Badrinath Upadhyay.

The workmen have also adduced the following documentary evidence:-

Exhibit W, W-1/1 to W-1/3 – Offer of appointment

Exhibit W-2 – Office Order of G.M. dated 12.12.2008.

Exhibit W-3 – Copy of Gate Passes

Exhibit W-4 – Office order dated 20.07.1978

Exhibit W-5 – Letter of Union dated 13.12.2012

Exhibit W-6 –Copy of Award dated 29.08.2003 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Ref.4/98

Exhibit W-7 – Copy of Award dated 23.06.2004 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Ref.4/93

Exhibit W-8 - Circular dated 25.05.1990

Exhibit W-9 – Letter dated 21.06.1966 of Dy. Personnel Manager to the Secretary of Union.

Exhibit W-10 – Letter dated 21.11.2012 of the management.

Exhibit W-11 – Letter dated 08.02.2013 of the management.

Exhibit W-12 Series – Duty Roster of the employees of B.G.H

Exhibit W-13 Series/‗X‘ for Identification – Letter of General Secretary as well as List of workmen

On the other hand the management has examined MW-1 Sushma Sahay.

The management has adduced the following documentary evidence as Exhibit M-1 Series – Monthly Salary

Statement of Staffs.

10.

Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

11.

The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the workman has submitted that the employees of B.S.P. working in B.G.H. in

Nursing and Para Medical Services are governed by the Service Rules of B.S.P. and they are governed by the Service

Rules, Standing Orders and Executive Orders issued from time to time and accordingly they performed duties from

Monday to Friday from 09:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with one hour lunch break and the duty hours of the employees of

Bokaro Steel Plant who are governed by the Service Rules, is 36 hours per week. Although the Nursing and Para

Medical Staff of B.G.H. are covered under the Service Rules and they worked for 48 hours in a week and are

performing shift wise duties and similarly placed employees who are governed by Service Rules and working in the

Sales Accounts (Invoice Group) and EDP Centre of Bokaro Steel Plant also worked for 48 hours in a week in shifts

are paid 20% of their Basic Pay and D.A. as special allowance to compensate for their extension/change in working

hours from 36 to 48 hours but the employees of Bokaro General Hospital particularly Nursing and Para Medical Staff

are not paid 20% special allowance of their basic pay and D.A. which is discriminatory and prayed to allow the same.

5080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

On the other hand the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the management has submitted that the workmen of B.S.P.

who have been performing 48 hours duty in a week are entitled to get enhanced incentive and rewards of 50% and the

employees of B.S.P. are getting 20% special allowance as machine allowance but the concerned workmen who are the

employees of Nursing and Para Medical Staff are not concerned with the machine and therefore they are not entitled

to 20% extra special allowances/machine allowances and prayed to reject the reference.

13.

Issue

Whether the action of the management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL in not paying 20% special allowance to

the workers, working in Bokaro General Hospital is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?‖

14.

Now as regards the oral evidence of the workmen, WW-1 Ghanshyam Sharma who is also one of the

concerned workmen and is posted as Senior Technician X-Ray in B.G.H. X-Ray department, has deposed that he is

working there since 12.12.1990 and his name has been displayed on serial no. 126 of the list of employees that has

been filed by the union on 20.06.2014. This list contains 218 employees. All the Employees/Para Medical Staff are

governed by the Service conduct rules and discipline and appeal rules. He has also submitted his offer of appointment.

Except Saturday all the employees governed by Service Rules working for six and half hours and on Saturday they

work for three and half hours only. He has further deposed that under the service conditions the employees who are

daily working for 8 hours in shifts, are paid 20% special allowances for their additional duty which is 20% of their

Basic and D.A. and in this regard he has submitted the office order issued by Bokaro Steel Management. As they are

also governed by the same service rules and conditions, they are entitled for 20% special allowance. In cross-

examination he has admitted that he is deposing on behalf of all the workmen of this reference case. He has admitted

that in the appointment letter the working hour was not mentioned. They are working in shifts.

WW-2 BabyAcharya is also one of the concerned workmen and she is working as Nurse in Eye Department

in B.S.P. General Hospital since 02.11.1988. She has also repeated the same facts as stated by WW-1 in his

examination- in- chief. She has stated that the lists in hand are of the Nursing Staff and Ministerial Staff and they

obtained the list from Personnel Department. In cross examination she has admitted that in their appointment letter the

duty hours was not mentioned. She has also stated that it is not a fact that the circular is not meant for hospital staff.

They are getting production bonus. She has denied that their claims are different from other workmen. She has also

denied that the others who use machines get extra machine allowance.

WW-3 Badrinath Upadhyay is the Joint General Secretary of Bokaro Steel Workers Union and he has

deposed that the special allowance/machine allowance are applicable from 1978. As per Service Rules who work for

more than six and half hours a day are entitled to get the 20% allowance. Ministerial officials are also getting 20%

allowances. He has proved the list under his signature that he prepared from personnel department of BSL. In cross

examination he has stated that it is not a fact that he has not any genuine union to contest the claim of the workmen.

He has denied that Exhibit W-13 is after thought list.

15.

Now as regards the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the workmen, Exhibit W-1 to W-1/3

are the offer of appointment for the concerned employees issued from Bokaro Steel Plant, Personnel Department,

Bokaro Steel City on different dates in the names of different employees. Exhibit W-2 is the office order of G.M.

(P&A) dated 12.12.2008 issued to G.M. (Proj.), B.S.P. Bokaro regarding Discipline Management and on its perusal it

is evident that the duty hours of the employees posted in Ispat Bhavan Complex, T&D Centre, Nagar Sewa Bhavan

and its allied offices has been given as follows:

i. Executives : 9.00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (with half an hour lunch break)

ii. Non-executives:



Standing Orders : 08:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. (with half an hour lunch break)



Service Rules : Monday to Friday : 09:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. (with one hour lunch break)

Saturday : 09:30 a.m. to 01:00 p.m.

Exhibit W-3 Series are the copy of Gate Passes. Exhibit W-4 is the Office order dated 20.07.1978 issued under the

signature of the Secretary of Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant regarding the shift working in Sales

Account Section (Invoicing Group) and EDP Centre (Input/Output section) in which it has been mentioned that the

approval of the Managing Director is hereby conveyed to the grant of special/machine allowance @ 20% of Basic Pay

and D.A. to the under-mentioned categories of staff of Sales Accounts Section (Invoicing Group) and EDP Centre

(Input/Output Section) who would be working for 48 hours a week in three shifts 8 hours per day and would be

allowed weekly holiday in a staggered manner that is on any day in the week and in second paragraph it has been

mentioned that in the event of either withdrawal of shift work from these areas as a result of management policy or in

the event of transfer of any of the staff to other section where shift working and the working hours of 48 hours per

week are not in force, the payment of this special/machine allowance shall be dis-continued w.e.f. the date of such

withdrawal/transfer and thus it is clear that the shift working and the working hour of 48 hours per week are the

central/core part of this office order meaning thereby so long as these employees are working in the sections were

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5081

shift working and working hour of 48 hours are applicable they are entitled to special/machine allowance @ 20% of

their Basic Pay and D.A.and this office order also shows that even messengers and Daftary are being provided the

benefit of these allowances in Sales Accounts Section who have nothing to take with the operation of machines.

Exhibit W-5 is the letter dated 13.12.2012 written by the Union to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

regarding raising of Industrial Dispute for Nursing Sisters and Para Medical Staff of Bokaro General Hospital.

Exhibit W-6 is the Award dated 29.08.2003 passed in Reference Case No. 4 of 1998 by the Presiding Officer of

Industrial Tribunal Ranchi in case between the management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City and their

workmen represented by General Secretary of the Union in which the Award was passed in favour of the workmen

holding that to freeze the admissible 20% special allowance to the workmen of the Sales Accounts (Invoicing Group)

of Bokaro Steel Plant for work beyond working period by the management is not proper and allowed arrears of the

same. Exhibit W-7 is the Award dated 23.06.2004 passed in Reference Case No. 4 of 1993 by the Presiding Officer

of Industrial Tribunal Ranchi in case between the management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City and

their workmen represented by General Secretary of the Union in which it was held that the management can not

reduce the benefit of the workers ignoring the provisions of Company‘s conduct Rules and Discipline and Appeal

Rules in the Company‘s Standing Orders regarding leave and other benefits. Exhibit W-8 is the Circular dated

25.05.1990 of Steel Authority of India Ltd., B.S.P. by which it was stated that it was decided to extend the check-off

facility to the members of BSMU at Bokaro Steel Plant and its various Units/Deptts/Sections. Exhibit W-9 is the

letter of Dy. Personnel Manager against the recognition of Union dated 21.06.1966 by which the union of Bokaro

Steel Workers was accorded recognition under the code of discipline by the Deputy Personnel Manager. Exhibit W-

10 is the letter of Sr. Manager (Pers-IR) to A.L.C. (C) dated 21.11.2012 regarding the Industrial Dispute raised by

Bokaro Steel Workers Union over deliberate change in service conditions of the employees of Bokaro General

Hospital, Bokaro Steel Plant by which it has been intimated that the Award of Ld. Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal, Ranchi in Ref. Case No. 4 of 1998 is not related with the employees of B.G.H. This award is related with

the employees of Sales Accounts (Invoicing Group) who used to get special allowance @ 20% of Basic Pay and D.A.

Exhibit W-11 is the letter dated 08.02.2013 written by the Sr. Manager (Pers-IR) to the A.L.C.(C) informing that

there is not a single employee in B.G.H. whose service condition has been changed from Service Rules to Standing

Orders as such there has not been any violation of provisions of section 9A of the I.D. Act, 1947. Exhibit W-12 is

duty roster of the employees of B.G.H. Exhibit W-13 is the letter of General Secretary of the union along with list of

218 employees of B.G.H., the concerned workmen.

16.

Now as regards the oral evidence of the management, MW-1 Sushma Sahay is the Assistant Manager

(Personnel) at Bokaro Steel Plant and she has deposed that the union has not mentioned the name of the workmen on

whose behalf they have raised industrial dispute before conciliation officer and the conciliation officer has not

submitted the names of the workmen concerned in the Ministry and so the Ministry has not incorporated the names of

the workmen in the order of reference. She has further deposed that Bokaro General Hospital of Bokaro Steel City is

covered under the Factories Act, 1948 and according to chapter VI, the working hour of an adult workman is 48 hours

in a week and all the workers of B.G.H. are working for 48 hours in a week from its inception and introduction of

shift wise duty and they are also entitled to get enhanced incentive and reward of 50% whereas the workmen who are

working less than 48 hours in a week are getting 36% of incentive and rewards and the management never changed

the service conditions of the workmen who are working at B.G.H. The employees of B.G.H. whose services are

governed by the provisions of service rules are enjoying all facilities including leave applicable to the Service Rules.

The wages is being paid to the employees of the B.S.P. according to the recommendation of National Joint Committee

for the Steel Industry and the NJCS agreement does not recognize the payments of 20% of special allowance to any

workman and so the demand made by the sponsoring union for payment of 20% special allowance to the workers

working in B.G.H. is neither legal nor justified. In cross- examination she has admitted that she can not say whether

the B.G.H. is registered under the Factories Act. She has no documents to support the facts of Para-3 of her

examination- in- chief. She also can not say truthfulness of the facts of Para-4 of her examination- in- chief and she

has admitted that after attending the monthly production the employees are entitled to get incentive and reward. She

has also admitted that the concerned workmen are not getting 20% extra wages but many persons in BSL get the same

which is called Special Machine Allowance and she has also admitted the suggestion saying that it is not a fact that

the workmen are not entitled to get 20% extra allowance.

17.

Now as regards the documentary evidence of the management, Exhibit M-1 Series are the monthly salary

statements of staffs.

18.

Admittedly all the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant are governed by the Service Rules, Standing Orders and

Executive Orders issued from time to time. This is also admitted fact that all the concerned workmen who are

working in B.G.H. particularly Nursing and Para Medical Staff are also working for 48 hours a week in shifts and

that is why they are claiming 20% special allowance of their Basic Pay and D.A. on the ground of parity contending

that the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant who are working in Sales Accounts Section (Invoicing Group) and EDP

centre (Input/Output Section) of BSP are also working for 48 hours a week in shifts and they are getting 20% of Basic

Pay and D.A. as special allowances. Now this Tribunal has to see and examine as to what extent the claims of the

concerned employees are sustainable in the eyes of law?

19.

In this regard Exhibit W-4 is the most important document that provides force to the claim of the concerned

5082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employees because on its perusal it is crystal clear that this is an office order dated 20^th July 1978 issued from the

Office of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant for shift working in Sales Accounts Section (Invoicing

Group) and EDP Centre (Input/Output section) by which approval for the payment of grant of special/machine

allowance @20% of Basic Pay and D.A. to the categorized staff of Sales Accounts Section (Invoicing Group) and

EDP Centre have been accorded by the Managing Director and on its perusal it further transpires that this is

applicable to the workers of the Sales Accounts Section (Invoicing Group) and EDP Centre (Input/Output section)

who are working for 48 hours a week in 3 shifts and 8 hours per day and this category also includes the Messengers

and Daftary who do not appear to have any connection with the machine operation and most importantly, on perusal

of Para-2 of this office order it is crystal clear that in the event of either withdrawal of shift works from these areas as

a result of Management Policy or in the event of transfer of any of the staff to other section where shift working and

the working hours of 48 hours per week are not in force, payment of this special/machine allowance shall be dis-

continued with effect from the date of such withdrawal/transfer and thus it leaves no doubt that the shift working

and working hour for 48 hours per week are the central/core part of this office order and needless to say that the

concerned employees who are working in Nursing and Para Medical Staff of Bokaro General Hospital of Bokaro

Steel Plant who are also working in shift and their working hours are of 48 hours per week are equally entitled to this

special allowance @ 20% of their Basic Pay and D.A.on the ground of parity and depriving them of this benefit is out

and out discriminatory on the part of the management of Bokaro Steel Plant. Not only this, on perusal of Exhibit W-

1/4 it transpires that this is an offer of appointment to the employee Sri Ghanshyam Sharma for the appointment in the

post of Technician (X-Ray) Grade-II in the Bokaro Steel Plant and thus such employees are also operating machine

and when Messengers and Daftaries of the Sales Accounts Section can be extended the benefit of 20% Special

Allowance/machine allowance of their Basic and D.A. why not these similarly situated employees.

20.

So in addition to the admission of MW-1 in the last portion of her cross-examination, the concerned

employees have been able to prove their case by means of Exhibit W-4 also that on parity ground they are entitled to

20% special/machine allowance and the office order dated 20^th July 1978 also equally applies to them being on

similarly situated footing.

21.

Thus on the basis of the above discussions of facts, circumstances and materials on record this Tribunal finds

and holds that the action of the management of Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL in not paying 20% special allowance to the

workers working in Bokaro General Hospital is neither legal nor justified and all the concerned employees of this

Reference Case are held entitled to the 20% Special Allowance of their Basic Pay and D.A. from the date of their

respective joining and the management is directed to take steps for the payment of the same within a period of 3

months from the date of publication of this Award. The reference is answered accordingly.

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 ददल्ली, 26 मई , 2026

का.आ. 1085.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और उनके कमजचारी के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, धनबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 35/2012) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 26.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/1/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to LIC of India and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 26.05.2026.

[No. L-17012/1/2012 – IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5083

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.2 , DHANBAD

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

Ref. Case No.- 35/2012

Parties :

Employer in relation to the management of LIC of India, Divisional

Office, Begusarai.

AND

Their Workman

Present : Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer/Link Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- None

For Workman :- None

State : Jharkhand Industry :- Financial

Dated:17/03/2026

AWARD

1. In the present case, a Reference was received from the appropriate Government vide later no. L-17012/1/2012 (IR

(M)) dated 22/05/2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the I.D. Act. 1947 for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Begusarai

in retrenching Shri Vinay Kumar raj who worked in the management since March 1991 to 19/3/2005 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief workman is entitled?”

2. In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government directed the parties raising the dispute

to file statement of claim, complete with relevant document, list of reliance and witness which this Tribunal within 15

days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claims to the opposite parties

involved in the dispute.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management and

accordingly statement of claim and WS and rejoinder was filed by the parties and evidence was also led by the

workman but the case record shows that the case is running at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the

management but it further appears that after 30/07/2019 this case record was put up after a long gap on 3/02/2026

and regd. notices were sent to both parties but the notice of workman was returned with endorsement ― bl uke ds

O;fDr dk e`R;q gks pqdk gSAß.And thereafter none has appeared on behalf of the woarkman and therefore there is no need to

continue the proceeding on this case.

In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ―No Dispute /claim‖ award .

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as required u/s 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

5084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 26 मई , 2026

का.आ. 1086.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार श्री सुब्रतो दत्ता के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और उनके कमजचारी के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, धनबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 49/2005) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया

गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 26.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/8/2005-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 49/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Shri Subrato Dutta and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 26.05.2026.

[No. L-29011/8/2005– IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.2, DHANBAD

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

Ref. Case No.-49/2005

Parties : Employer in relation to the management of

Shri Subrato Dutta, Mine Owner

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Shri Sachindar Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer/Link Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Shri D.K. Verma Ld. Advocate

For Workman :- None

State : Jharkhand Industry :- Coal

Dated 17/03/2026

AWARD.

In the present case, a Reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

no. L-29011/8/2005- IR(M) dated 27/04/2005 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of section 10 of

the I.D. Act. 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:-

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the Management of Shri Subrato Dutta, Mine Owner, S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar

Dutta, At& P.O. Rampur Hat, PS Rapur Hat, Distt. Birbhum (W.B.) in terminating the services of S/Shri

Pahlam Mia and 13 others( as per list enclosed ) without complying Section 25-F of I.D. Act is legal and

or justified? If not, to what relief theabove workmaen are entitled?.

In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government directed the parties raising the

dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant document, list of reliance and witness which this Tribunal

within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claims to the opposite

parties involved in the dispute .

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5085

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management and

accordingly statement of claim and WS and rejoinder was filed by the parties and but the case record shows that the

record is running at the stage of filing documents by the parties for more than 10 years and in the meantime the

workman absented himself since 29/02/2014 and the registered notice was also issued to the Union/workman but the

notice was returned with endorsement dated 16/03/2026 ―No such person in this address‖ and none appeared on his

side to take steps which makes it clear that the workman/Union has lost interest in this case.

In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ―No Dispute /claim ―Award . Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as required u/s 17 of the Industrial Dispute

Act,1947.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई ददल्ली, 26 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1087.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री अनबरासु िनमुगम के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 77/2025) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-29]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 77/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to LIC of India and Shri Anbarasu Shanmugam which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 26.05.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-29]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

ID No. 77/2025

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 27-02-2026

Sh. Anbarasu Shanmugam,

No.1/51, Big Street,

Melveeranam,

Sholingur Taluk,

Ranipet District – 632 505 .

: 1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Vellore Division, Division Office,

Jeevan Prakash, Arcot Road,

Vellore – 632 004

: 2^nd Party / Respondent

5086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party / Petitioner

: Party in person

For the 2^nd Party / Respondent

: Representative of the Respondent

AWARD

This petition u/s.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is directly filed by the Petitioner Mr. Anbarasu Shanmugam

who held the office of development officers in the office of Respondent seeking the following relief from the

Respondent/Management of LIC of India, Vellore:-

a) Issue a writ / order / direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Termination Order dated 29.09.2022

issued by Respondents.

b) Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant forthwith in service as Development Officer with continuity of

service, full back wages, and all consequential benefits including seniority, increments and promotions from the

date of termination

c) Award costs of the Application to the Applicant &

d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon‘ble Tribunal cum Labour Court may deem fit and proper in the

interest of justice.

ID called out. Heard of maintainability. Having gone through the record and after hearing the petitioner in

person and representative of the Respondent / Management,the question that arises to consider at this stage is whether

the petitioner / claimant comes under the category of workman.

The Respondent filed a clear case law on the subject is Chauharya Tripathi & Ors Vs LIC of India &Ors

wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that the Development Officers working in LIC are not workmen under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the claimant is not a workman, and

therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the lis.

ID is dismissed in for want of jurisdiction and the application filed u/s 2A by the Petitioner is answered

accordingly.

The Petitioner / Claimant may file a petition before the competent authority, if so advised.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 26 मई , 2026

का.आ. 1088.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार सेंरल वेयरहाउहसग कॉृोरेिन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और भारतीय कामगार सेना के बीच अनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 34/2023) को जजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 26.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-46]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Central Warehousing Corporation and Bhartiya Kamgar Sena which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 26.05.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-46]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5087

ANNEXURE

BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

Presiding Officer/Link Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/34 of 2023

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

Party No.1. Central Warehousing Corporation,

CFS Dronagiri,

Node Pagote,

Uran,

Raigad– 410 206,

State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Bhartiya Kamgar Sena)

Prafullaben Society,

R. K. Vaidya Road,

Dadar (W),

Mumbai,

Mumbai– 400 028,

State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management

Mr. Anand D. Gugale.

Advocate.

Workmen

: No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 10-03-2026)

This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. B.ALC(C)-II/8(90)/2019 B3 dated 01.10.2023. The terms

of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

“Whether the demand Bhartiya Kamgar Sena for permanent absorption of services of Shri

Moreshwar Nathuram Patil and 279 others by CWC at Dronagiri Node is fair, legal and justified?

If yes, what relief these workmen are entitled to?”

Case called out today. Both parties are absent on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that,

both parties are not responding and attending the Court since 19.01.2024 despite service of notices. No Statement of

Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has been filed

by the petitioner/union till today to prove his case. The petitioner/union is not coming to the court since long back. It

appears that, the petitioner/union is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/union is

not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The demand Bhartiya Kamgar Sena for permanent absorption of services of Shri Moreshwar Nathuram Patil

and 279 others by CWC at Dronagiri Node is not fair, not legal and not justified. These workmen are not

entitled to any relief.

Date: 10-03-2026

5088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई ददल्ली, 26 मई , 2026

का.आ. 1089.—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 (a177/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/29/2001-आईआर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 177/2001) 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-12012/29/2001- 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 27^th day of April, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 177/2001

Between:

Sri G. Venkatesh,

C/o V. Venkata Ramana,

D.No.34/84, Mahaboob hash Street,

Ravachoty,

Cuddapah – 516001.

… Petitioner

And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupathi.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/29/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.8.2001

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupati, Rayachoty Main branch in

terminating the services of Sri G. Venkatesh, Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5089

entitled?‖

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 177/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and

the management.

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. All 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.

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 31.12.1996, and has

rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 9 years. The Respondent has terminated services of

Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent

bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by

wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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

5090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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‖.

Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1^st

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

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

(Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all

these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the

list of the selected candidates arose with that it‘s a question of time their appointments or services would be

regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under

the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options

elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was

made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

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.

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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5091

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.

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.

5092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be

absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the

authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be

appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the

Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices

and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to

their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the

Constitution of India.

13.

The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called

Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the

Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair

labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97

who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice

and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural

justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's

notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without

jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is

not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that

Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90

in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.

The

management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving

chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent

Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997,

subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating,

the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for

absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the

Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of

the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal,

violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman

and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14.

Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and

contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff

like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary

basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of

the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15.

Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the

Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after

referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement

above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized

would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies

which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the

Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992

in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3^rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to

arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to

all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee

constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow

the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in

12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5093

1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a

settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a

further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the

bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was

a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of

the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final,

settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the

settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was

extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that

while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily

wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16.

It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal

Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra

Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the

panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers

denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were

prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put

in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the

Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary

employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was

arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of

the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived

at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read

with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5^th settlement. That on

27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management

recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been

completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these

vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-

messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the

Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of

temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies

were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a

continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon.

17.

Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements

having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the

settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of

the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under

these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never

promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that

candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after

31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said

settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the

settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the

vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be

absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for

employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be

decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of

the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the

settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the

bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of

the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time

basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on

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

5094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for

by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18.

Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be

continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door

entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and

deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights

have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation

being violated.

19.

Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was

filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed

Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements

cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.

Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High

Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20.

In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence

which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W5. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of

his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the memo of marks of X class. Ex.W2 is the transfer certificate. Ex.W3 is the service certificate cum

introduction letter. Ex.W4 is the service certificate. Ex.W5 is the panel list.

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 :-

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

27.10.1988, 4^th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5^th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of

Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II.

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Rayachoti branch in terminating the services of

Workman Sri G. Venkatesh, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III.

Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent

management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25.

Point No.I:-Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996,

minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the

State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947

read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5095

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the

aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that

the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on

the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the

empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been

issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not

in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the

Respondent in the 5^th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and

that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the

aforesaid 5^th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26.

The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal

Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in

the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of

temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided

by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated

25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category

from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements

entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent

Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial

category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels

of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office

order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has

been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been

decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary

employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the

aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the

Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily

wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5^th settlement

which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore,

Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of

panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision

contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:-

―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

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

5096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.”

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or

coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on

the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.

But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into

between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred

to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the

parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.”

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the

Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5^th

Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated

with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do

not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and

in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion

his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority

in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position

and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is

allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated

30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and

absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto

31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision

contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5097

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 payfor 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."

5098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 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. I did not undergo the regular selection process before my

engagement as temporary messenger in the branch..”

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5099

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

5100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

may be referred to as 5^th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5^th settlement dated 30.7.1996

whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it

was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily

wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on

31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would

lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names

from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided

administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s

affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate

cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997.

Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the

Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial

vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were

sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel

of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the

agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank

that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual

employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37.

The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for

appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by

appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of

panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as

mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life

of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant

case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5^th

Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of

India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5^th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the

same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors

vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.”

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the

5^th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last

Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in

the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding

nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement

dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has

no legal force and same is untenable.

38.

Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and

State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5101

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…. 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 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 5^th Settlement dated 30.7.1996

was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules

1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed

that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the

date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is

binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding

force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at

finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been

challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel

i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for

his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent

post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

5102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the

Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has

indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by

continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work,

as regular workmen on lower wages.

43.

Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the

panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is

contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no

occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any

evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the

workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to

create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to

grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the

claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44.

Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts

has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as

settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel

list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary

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

seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been

committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45.

As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond

31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired

on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in

the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the

vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the

permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

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

judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

“8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.”

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely

on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the

Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is

the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not

direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46.

In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman

utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he

would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under

Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and

few of them are discussed herein:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5103

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-

“7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.”

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997,

therein Hon‘ble High Court have held,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Act.”

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

“ 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.”

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case

of Workman.

47.

On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief

examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between

the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees

who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers

as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are

Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled

were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1

states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it

was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists

concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another

settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies

arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so

prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said

panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including

part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-

messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled

before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997.

Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of

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,

5104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. Venkatesh, 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 27^th day of April, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri G. Venkatesh

MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of memo of marks

Ex.W2: Photocopy of transfer certificate

Ex.W3: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Panel list

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 6, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 16, 1948

5105

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 ददल्ली, 26 मई , 2026

का.आ. 1090.—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 (178/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/40/2001-आईआर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2026

S.O. 1090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 178/2001) 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-12012/40/2001- 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 27^th day of April, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 178/2001

Between:

Sri J. Arun Kumar,

S/o Yellaiah,

H.No.11-24-584,

Post: Pochamma Maidan,

Warangal – 506367.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. / Chief General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD))

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank Street,

Hyderabad-500 095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

5106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 6, 2026/JYAISHTHA 16, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/40/2001-IR(B.I) dated 10.8.2001

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the

question:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri J. Arun Kumar, S/o Yellaiah, Temporary Messenger, S8BI, Battala Bazar

branch Warangal Dist. (A.P.) 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. 178/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and