3896 GI/2026

(5505)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 22]

नई दिल् ली, िून 7—िून 13, 2026, िजनवार/ज्येष् ठ 17—ज्येष् ठ 23, 1948

No. 22]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 7— JUNE 13, 2026, SATURDAY/JYAISHTHA 17–– JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जिक्षा मंत्रालय

(उच् चतर जिक्षा जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2026

का.आ. 1118.—लोक पररसर (अनजिकृत कब्िािाररयों को बेिकल करना) अजिजनयम, 1971 (1971

का 40) की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंद्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा नीचे िी गई ताजलका के

कॉलम (1) में उजल्लजखत अजिकारी, िो भारत सरकार के रािपजत्रत अजिकारी की रेंक के बराबर के अजिकारी

िै, को उि अजिजनयम के प्रयोिनाथ संपिा अजिकारी के रूप में जनयुि करती िै, िो उि ताजलका के कॉलम

(2) में जवजनर्ििष्ट लोक पररसरों के संबंि में अपने अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उत्त अजिजनयम

द्वारा अथवा उसके तित संपिा अजिकाररयों को सोंपे गए कायो का जनष्पािन करेंगे और प्रित्त िजियों का

प्रयोग करेंगे:-

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-25072026-274767

CG-DL-W-25072026-274767

5506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ताजलका

अजिकारी का पिनाम

लोक पररसरों की श्रेजियां और क्षेत्राजिकार की स्ट्थानीय सीमाएं

(1)

(2)

रजिस्ट्रार,

भारतीय इंिीजनयररंग जवज्ञान और प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान

(आईआईईएसटी), जिबपुर.

आईआईईएसटी, जिबपुर से संबंजित और उसके प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रि में

आने वाले सभी पररसर

[फा. सं. 32 - 1 / 2026 -टीएस.III]

पवन कुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(Department of Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2026

S.O. 1118.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in

column (1) of the Table below being an officer equivalent to the rank of gazetted officer of the Government of India

to be the Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the

duties imposed on estate officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the

public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table:-

Table

Designation of Officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of

jurisdiction.

(1)

(2)

Registrar, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and

Technology (IIEST), Shibpur.

All the premises belonging to and under the administrative

control of the IIEST, Shibpur.

[F. No. 32 - 1 / 2026 -TS.III]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

सूचना और प्रसारि मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1119.—केंद्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरि में िूरिििन केंद्र, िेिरािून जिनके 80% प्रजतित से अजिक कमिचाररयों ने हिंिी का

कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/02/2025-हिंिी]

तरुि कुमार, उप जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2026

S.O. 1119.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes

of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of Directorate General, Doordarshan

namely Doordarshan Kendra, Dehradun whereof more than 80% of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/02/2025-Hindi]

TARUN KUMAR, Dy. Director (O.L.)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5507

आवासन और ििरी कायि मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1120.— केंद्रीय सरकार एत द्वारा आवासन और ििरी कायि मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रिािीन केंद्रीय

लोक जनमाि जवभाग के जनम् नजलजखत कायािलयों, जिनके 80% से अजिक अजिकाररयों और कमिचाररयों ने हिंिी का

कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के जनयम-10 के

उप-जनयम (4) के अंतगित अजिसूजचत करती िै :

1. कायिपालक अजभयंता वैद्युत (जिमला), केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, कनेडी कॉटेि जिमला-171004 (जिमाचल प्रिेि)

2. मुख्य अजभयंता सि कायिकारी जनिेिक, पररयोिना अंचल चंडीगढ़, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, केन्द्रीय सिन, जद्वतीय

तल, सैक्टर 9 ए-160002 (चंडीगढ़)

3. मुख्य अजभयंता (वैद्युत). संसि वैद्युत कायि अंचल, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, संसि ज्ञानपीठ भवन, पं. पंत मागि नई

दिल्ली-110001 (दिल्ली)

4. अिीक्षि अजभयंता (वैद्युत), संसि वैद्युत कायि पररमंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, संसि भवन पररसर, पं. पंत

मागि, नई दिल्ली-110001 (दिल्ली)

5. कायिपालक अजभयंता (वैद्युत), संसि भवन वैद्युत कायि मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, संसि भवन पररसर, नई

दिल्ली-110001 (दिल्ली)

6. कायिपालक अजभयंता (वैद्युत), संसि सौंि वैयुत कायि मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, 36 िी.आर.िी. रोड नई

दिल्ली-110001 (दिल्ली)

7. कायिपालक अजभयंता (वैद्युत), संसि ज्ञानपीठ वैद्युत कायि मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, संसि ज्ञानपीठ भवन,

संसि भवन पररसर, पं. पंत मागि नई दिल्ली-110001 (दिल्ली)

8. संसि भवन जसजवल कायि मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, 36, गुरुद्वारा रकाब गंि रोड, नई दिल्ली- 110001

(दिल्ली)

9. मुख्य अजभयंता, संसिीय जसजवल कायि अंचल, संसिीय ज्ञानपीठ भवन, संसि भवन पररसर, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि

जवभाग, नई दिल्ली 110001 (दिल्ली)

10. संसिीय पररसर जसजवल कायि मंडल, संसिीय ज्ञानपीठ भवन, संसि भवन पररसर, संसि मागि, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि

जवभाग, नई दिल्ली 110001 (दिल्ली)

11. संसिीय जसजवल कायि पररमंडल, संसिीय ज्ञानपीठ भवन, संसि भवन पररसर, संसि मागि, नई दिल्ली-110001

(दिल्ली)

12. कायिपालक अजभयंता। जिमला, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, कनेडी कॉटेि जिमला-171004 (जिमांचल प्रिेि)

13. अिीक्षि अजभयंता, मकान नं.–1, टाईप-V, भारतीय प्रािी सवेक्षि आवासीय पररसर, जविय नगर, िबलपुर-

482002 (मध्य प्रिेि)

14. कायिपालक अजभयंता ग्वाजलयर, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, 35-जसटी सेंटर, ग्वाजलयर- 474011 (मध्य प्रिेि)

15. कायािलय अिीक्षि अजभयंता एवं पररयोिना जनिेिक, भोपाल पररयोिना पररमंडल, जनमाि सिन, 52-ए, अरेरा

जिल्स-462011 (भोपाल)

16. कायिपालक अजभयंता (पुिे)- I, जनमाि भवन, मुकुन्ि नगर, पुिे-411037 (मिाराष्ट्र)

17. कायिपालक अजभयंता (पुिे)-II, मुकुन्ि नगर, जनयर रंका अस्ट्पताल, पुिे-411037 (मिाराष्ट्र)

18. कायिपालक अजभयंता (वैद्युत), केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, जनमाि भवन, मुकुंिनगर, पुिे- 411037 (मिाराष्ट्र)

19. कायिपालक अजभयंता (वैद्युत), कोच्चि केन्द्रीय वैद्युत मण्डल, चौथी मंजिल, केंद्रीय भवन, काक् कनाड, कोच्चि-

682037 (केरल)

20. कायिपालक अजभयंता कोच्चिन, केन्द्रीय भवन, काक् कनाड, कोच्चिन-682037 (केरल)

21. कायिपालक अजभयंता गांिीनगर II, तीसरी मंजिल, केंद्रीय जनमाि सिन, केन्द्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, सेक्टर 10-ए,

गांिीनगर-382010 (गुिरात)

5508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22. उपजनिेिक (उद्यान), पिली मंजिल, कैद्रीय जनमाि सिन, केंद्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, सेक्टर 10- ए, गांिीनगर-

382010 (गुिरात)

23. कायिपालक अजभयंता (वैद्युत), गांिीनगर II, िूसरी मंजिल, केंद्रीय जनमाि सिन, केंद्रीय लोक जनमाि जवभाग, सेक्टर

10-ए, गांिीनगर-382010 (गुिरात)

[फा. सं. ई- 11017/5/2013-हिंिी]

गोपाल प्रसाि, आर्थिक सलािकार

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2026

S.O. 1120.— In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Official Language (Use for official purpose

of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Central

Public Works Department under administrative control of Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, where

more than 80% of officers/ employees have attained working. knowledge of Hindi:

1. Office of Executive Engineer (Electrical), Central Public Works Department, Kennedy Cottage, Shimla-

171004(Himachal Pradesh)

2. Office of Chief Engineer-cum-Executive Director, Project Zone Chandigarh, Central Public Works

Department, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A-160002 (Chandigarh)

3. Office of the Chief Engineer (Electrical), Parliament Electrical Works Zone, Central Public Works

Department, Sansad Gyanpeeth Bhawan, Pt. Pant Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Delhi)

4. Office of the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Parliament Electrical Works Circle, Central Public

Works Department, Parliament House Complex, Pt. Pant Marg, New Delhi 110001 (Delhi)

5. Office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Parliament House Electrical Works Division, Central

Public Works Department, Parliament House Complex, New Delhi 110001 (Delhi)

6. Office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Sansad Saundh Electrical Works Division, Central Public

Works Department, 36 GRG Road, New Delhi-110001 (Delhi)

7. Office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Sansad Gyanpeeth Electrical Works Division, Central

Public Works Department, Sansad Gyanpeeth Bhawan, Parliament House Complex, Pt. Pant Marg, New

Delhi-110001 (Delhi)

8. Parliament House Civil Works Division, Central Public Works Department, 36, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj

Road, New Delhi-110001 (Delhi)

9. Chief Engineer, Parliamentary Civil Works Zone, Sansad Gyanpeeth Bhawan, Parliament House

Complex, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi-110001 (Delhi)

10. Parliamentary Complex Civil Works Division, Sansad Gyanpeeth Bhawan, Parliament House

Complex, Sansad Marg, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi-110001 (Delhi)

11. Parliamentary Civil Works Circle, Sansad Gyanpeeth Bhawan, Parliament House Complex, Sansad

Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Delhi)

12. Office of the Executive Engineer-I, Shimla, Central Public Works Department, Kennedy Cottage,

Shimla-171004 (Himachal Pradesh)

13. Office of the Superintending Engineer, House No.-1, Type-V, Zoological Survey of India Residential

Complex, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur-482002 (Madhya Pradesh)

14. Office of the Executive Engineer, Gwalior, Central Public Works Department, 35 City Centre,

Gwalior-474011 (Madhya Pradesh)

15. Office of the Superintending Engineer & Project Director, Bhopal Project Circle, Nirman Sadan, 52-A,

Arera Hills, Bhopal.

16. Executive Engineer (Pune)-1, Nirman Bhawan, Mukund Nagar, Pune-411037 (Maharashtra)

17. Office of the Executive Engineer (Pune)-II, Mukund Nagar, Near Ranka Hospital, Pune- 411037

(Maharashtra)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5509

18. Office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan,

Mukund Nagar, Pune-411037 (Maharashtra)

19. Office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Kochi Central Electrical Division, 4th Floor, Kendriya

Bhawan, Kakkanad, Kochi-682037 (Kerala)

20. Office of the Executive Engineer Cochin, Kendriya Bhawan, Kakkanad, Cochin-682037

21. Office of the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Gandhinagar-II, 3rd Floor,

Kendriya Nirman Sadan, Central Public Works Department, Sector 10A, Gandhinagar- 382010 (Gujarat)

22. Office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Central Public Works Department, Gandhinagar-II, 2nd

Floor, Kendriya Nirman Sadan, Central Public Works Department, Sector 10A, Gandhinagar-382010

(Gujarat)

23. Office of the Deputy Director (Horticulture), Central Public Works Department, Gandhinagar-II,

1st Floor, Kendriya Nirman Sadan, Central Public Works Department, Sector 10A, Gandhinagar-382010

(Gujarat)

[F. No. E-11017/5/2013-Hindi]

GOPAL PRASAD, Economic Advisor

Je ,oa jkstxkj e

=ky;

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2026

का.आ. 1121.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a82/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. 12012/526/2000-आई आर (बी-I]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2026

S.O. 1121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 82/2001) 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. 12012/526/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Deputy Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 82/2001

Between:

Sri G. Sathish Kumar,

R/o 7-160,

Champapet,

Opp DMRL Maruthinagar,

5510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ranga Reddy District.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri M. Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/526/2000-IR(B.I) dated

14.06.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide

the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri G. Sathish Kumar, Temporary/Non-Messenger, SBI with effect from

31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 82/2001 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. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important

aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that

could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have

been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body,

which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the

order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings

and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for

consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the

materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the

management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5511

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 20.3.2019.

The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement is that the

Petitioner herein was engaged by the Respondent Bank—State Bank of India—as a Messenger (temporary employee).

The Petitioner have joined the service of the Respondent Bank at Secunderabad Main branch as a Messenger on

1.6.1998 and worked for 51days till July, 1988 in the first spell. He worked in different spells upto 18.3.1997. It is

submitted that Respondent has terminated the services of Petitioner without assigning any valid reasons. But the

Respondent has retained Petitioner’s juniors in service. It is submitted that he could not secure any alternative

employment ti1l date inspite of his best efforts. It is submitted that there is sufficient work with the respondent and

extending the opportunities to others denying the Petitioner is unjust and contrary to law. Hence, the action of the

Respondent is not justified. Therefore, it is prayed to grant the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and all

attendant benefits.

The Respondent Bank contends that the reference made is untenable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

as the Bank temporarily engaged subordinate staff—messengers, sweepers, etc.—strictly on a need-based, ad hoc

basis to ensure uninterrupted operations to address staff shortages due to leave vacancies and constraints imposed by

the Government of India and RBI on hiring.

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. Various discussions were held to resolve the said issue, resulting in five

settlement agreements between the Bank and the Workmen.

The first settlement dated 17.11.1987 (under Sec. 2(p) r/w Sec. 18(1) of the ID Act) categorized temporary

employees and provided for consideration of permanent absorption against vacancies between 1987–1991. The

second settlement dated 16.07.1988 extended this period to 1987–1992. The third settlement dated 27.10.1988

reaffirmed consideration of vacancies arising from 1988–1992. Following these, the Government of India issued

recruitment guidelines on 16.08.1990, recommending settlement-based absorption for temporary employees with

more than 240 days of service in a 12-month block. For those with fewer days, the guidelines allowed for discretion-

based conciliation.

Despite this, the Bank, in a liberal approach, considered even those with less than 90 days' service and those

employed since 1975. However, para 6(k) of the approach paper clarified that this would be a one-time exercise

resolving all past claims. Subsequently, the fourth settlement dated 09.01.1991 extended panel validity to 1994, with

daily wagers considered for 1995–1996 vacancies. It is submitted that Zone-wise panels (1989 for temporary

employees and 1992 for daily wagers) were also created, listing candidates in descending order of service from

01.07.1975 to 31.07.1988.

The Federation also sought implementation through the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), resulting

in a conciliation agreement on 09.02.1995. This led to the fifth settlement dated 30.07.1996. Finally, on 27.02.1997, a

Memorandum of Understanding recorded that 403 messengerial vacancies were identified and would be filled from

the 1989 panel. Both panels were agreed to lapse on 31.03.1997. Thus, the Workman, who served less than 240 days

in any 12-month block during the reference period, has no legal claim outside these settlements.

It is further argued that the Workman’s case has already been considered under the five settlements. The

settlements were time-bound and binding on both parties, hence, the Bank was not obligated to absorb all empanelled

candidates. Sustaining panels beyond 31.03.1997 would contradict the settlements and constitutional principles

(Articles 14 & 16), amounting to backdoor regularization.

5512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

The Hon’ble High Court in WP No.12964/94 has affirmed that such settlements are binding and temporary

service does not create a right to regularization unless the Workman can show violation of a specific settlement term,

which is not the case here. The Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows,

"It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case

of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the

Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to

claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put

forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to

the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management.

As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the

settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any

ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails

and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

11.

Hence, the Workman’s claim was held misconceived. Furthermore, if the panels were not allowed to lapse, it

would undermine open recruitment processes, violating constitutional rights of other eligible candidates under

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as well as contrary to the settlements.

12.

Similarly placed ex-temporary employees approached the High Court via WP No. 9206/1995. Though

allowed by the Single Judge, the Division Bench reversed the decision in WA No. 86/1998. The Supreme Court

subsequently dismissed SLP Nos. 11886-11888/1998, making the original judgment irrelevant.

13.

The Workman (WW1) filed and relied on documents Ex.W1 to W10, including appointment letters,

interview letters, and service certificates showing employment across various periods. The Respondent examined

MW1, Sri Alluru Rama Rao, and produced 12 documents (Ex.M1–M12), including all five settlements, panel details,

and judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court, conclusively supporting the Bank’s position.

14.

The Workman also cited various judicial precedents which shall be addressed in the relevant portion of this

Award.

15.

Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman as well as for Respondent.

16.

On the basis of pleadings and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the parties, following

points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the

services of Workman Sri G. Sathish Kumar, a Temporary/Messenger with effect from March, 1997

is justified?

II.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

17.

Issue No.I:-

The Workman alleged that 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 illegally. Further, he

alleges that he has been terminated from service in violation of provision contained under Section 25 F of I.D. Act,

1947 and same is liable to be set aside.

18.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked continuously for 240 days

in any preceding calendar year and reference of the industrial dispute is not maintainable. Before examining the

claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to have a glance on the relevant provision pertaining to

retrenchment of workman under I.D. Act, 1947.

2(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,

otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the

employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in

that behalf contained therein; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;”

In view of the definition of retrenchment, perused the record. The Workman claims that he had been terminated from

the service of the Respondent in contravention of the provision of ID Act. The case of the Workman does not fall in

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5513

any exclusive clause of section 2(oo). Therefore, he is included in the category of retrenchment as defined under

section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act, 1947.

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;

Thus, in view of the above provision, Workman has to prove that he had worked with Respondent continuously for

240 days uninterruptedly in 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from data of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

It is settled law that the initial burden of proof to prove the fact of 240 days of service in the 12 months of a calendar

year just preceding from the date of termination, lies upon the Workman and he is duty bound to prove this factum

by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

As regard burden of proof and calculation of 240 continuous working days, following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme

Court are relevant as discussed here under:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..”

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex

Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the

principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction

to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered

uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12

calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.

5514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.”

19.

Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above in respect of calculating the

240 days continuous service by workman as per provision under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act,

1947, we have to examine whether Workman herein 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 by his evidence.

20.

In order to corroborate the averments made in claim statement, Petitioner has examined himself as WW1

and in his oral testimony WW1 has stated that he joined the service of Respondent at Secunderabad Branch, on

1.6.1988 as a Messenger and worked continuously in various branches depending upon the availability of work and

also as per the orders of bank officers till 31.3.1997. Further WW1 states that his last drawn salary was Rs.2800/- per

month. WW1 states that the Respondent has not given any advance notice to him before his termination and has not

obtained prior permission from central government for his retrenchment and Respondent has not given him any order

of termination. Further, WW1 states that he had worked Secundrabad Main branch of the Respondent and Ex.W1 is

the Service certificate for 51 days period of 1.7.1975 to 31.12.1987 . Ex. W2 is the Notification. Ex. W3 is the

Application Format. Ex. W4 is the interview call letter. Ex. W5 is the Service certificate for 197 days period of

1.1.1992 to 15.07.1992. Ex. W6 is the Service certificate for 199 days period of 28.12.1992 to 17.7.1993 dated

17.07.1993. Ex. W7 is the Service certificate for 198 days from 31.5.1994 to 27.11.1994. Ex. W8 is the Service

Certificate for 199 days for the period 17.06.1995 to 19.1.1996 dt. 22.01.1996. Ex. W9 is the Service certificate dated

14.08.1996. Ex. W10 is the Service certificate for 199 days from the period of 30.08.1996 to 18.3.1997 dated

18.03.1997.

21.

Further WW1 states that he worked for more than 240 days continuously in three separate spells in one year

period of time and he worked for 199 days continuously during the period from June, 1995 to January, 1996, Ex.W8

is the certificate in this regard. He worked for 199 days continuously in another spell from January, 1996 to August,

1996 at HAL campus and Ex.W9 is the concerned certificate. Lastly he had worked for 199 days from 30.8.1996 to

18.3.1997. Further, WW1 states that there were no complaints against him from any customers or officers of the

Respondent throughout the period of his service. This Witness was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in

his cross examination the WW1 states that he was given appointment as temporary messenger in the year 1988 for a

period of 51 days. Further, witness states that he was not sponsored by any employment exchange. Further, witness

states that he did not work continuously and he used to work depending upon availability of work in the bank.

Further, in reply to the question put by the Respondent counsel in cross examination, WW1 states that it is true that

he did not work for 240 days in any year in his service and he has not filed originals of Ex.W1, W5 to W9. Further,

witness states that it is not true to say that he never worked for 240 days in any year in his service as stated by him.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5515

Month

Working days

April,1996

May, 1996

June, 1996

July, 1996

August, 1996

30.8.1996 to 18.3.1997

199

Thus, sum of working days as shown in the above table is 335 days which is more than 240 working days as required

under the provision of section 25F of the ID Act for continuous service.

22.

However, Learned Counsel for Respondent bank has contended that the Petitioner has not worked

continuously for 240 days in a calendar year with the Respondent and protection from termination is not available to

Petitioner as per provision under section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. On going oral and documentary evidence available

on record it manifest that Respondent had engaged the Petitioner as a temporary messenger in different spells as

mentioned in his appointment letter during the total period of about 10 years. We may conclude from the documents

filed in evidence on record, that the Respondent has created artificial breaks in the working days of the Petitioner in

order to deprive him from completing 240 days of continuous service and in order to defeat social security provision

under the I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, Petitioner has been regularly engaged during the long period of 10 years by the

Respondent as a temporary messenger and has created artificial breaks of few days or more in his engagement as

employee. The conduct of Respondent in creating artificial breaks in engagement of workers is nothing but unfair

labour practice adopted by Respondent in order to deprive the Petitioner from entitlement of any benefits of social

security under the provision of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, it can safely be concluded that Respondent with malafide

intention has deliberately created artificial break in the employment of the Petitioner as a temporary messenger.

23.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and on going documentary and oral evidence on record I am of the

view that the Workman had worked for 240 days continuously in 12 months of calendar year just preceding from the

date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Undisputedly, Respondent has not filed any document pertaining to the fact

that 3 months notice was issued to the Petitioner as per provision contained under section 25N of the ID Act before

termination of Petitioner for service by oral order w.e.f.1.4.1997. Further, there is no evidence on record to the fact

that Respondent has paid any amount toward compensation. Therefore, oral termination order of the Petitioner from

employment issued by Respondent with effect from 1.4.1997 is in contravention of provision contained under section

25N of the I.D. Act, 1947 and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.

In the case of Shankar Bhimrao Kadam and others Vs. Tata Mototrs Limited, Bombay High Court in its

decision dated 28.2.2022 in Writ Petition No.5588 of 2017 have held:-

"52. I have independently assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Labour Court in

these cases and upon analysis of the same, I have come to a firm conclusion that in hundreds of cases, the present

Respondent has created a farcical picture by posing that the work allotted to the temporaries was limited only to the

maximum extent of 7 months. As discussed above, the dedicated department for engagement of temporary workers,

apparently kept a close watch on the duration of employment of these Petitioners and in a case like Balu Bapuji

Shelke, who had put in 232 days in his first round and 238 days in his third round, his service was abruptly

intercepted and he was disengaged. He had almost reached the figure of 240 days and was thrown out, after

completing 238 days. This indicates that the Respondent-management has created an eye-wash and paper-work with

the intention of creating evidence that no worker had completed 240 days. Even in Sunil Pralhad Khomane (supra),

the learned judge of this court, after analyzing the entire evidence before him, concluded that the company has

apparently misused Section 2(oo)(bb). For the reasons assigned by me and my esteemed brother in Sunil (supra), I

find that the said conclusion was justified and in all these cases in hands, Section 2(oo)(bb) will not be applicable. To

hold otherwise, would create a mockery of Section 2(oo)(bb).

58. It cannot be ignored from the various rounds of temporary employments of these temporaries that after one

disengagement, they used to look forward for the next appointment order. As expected, they used to receive such

appointment orders. They used to perform their duties not only till the tenure mentioned in the appointment order was

completed, but even upto reaching any duration between 225 days to 238 days in one single stint of temporary

employment. None of the temporaries in such cases, ever received an appointment order that a particular temporary

would work for 238 days or 236 days, etc. The maximum tenure was an appointment for 7 months. This was not the

pattern followed in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur (supra), inasmuch, as it was noticed by this court in the said

case that the workers used to work in other factories during their disengagement and had actually approached the

Industrial Court after about 9 to 23 years."

5516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Similarly, in the present case Respondent has issued number of appointment letters to engage the Workman for the

work in different spells for his employment in its branches. The practice of Respondent management of issuance of

the appointment letters in different spells for this engagement of the Petitioner Workman during the whole period for

more than ten years clearly manifest that Respondent management has adopted unfair labour practice in order to

deprive the Workman from availing social security benefits accruing to him under the provision of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

24.

Perused the record. Petitioner witness WW1 in his statement in chief has categorically stated that he had

worked for more than 240 days continuously in 2 separate spells in a period of one year. He had worked

continuously for 51 days at Secunderabad branch. Lastly, he worked for 199 days each in HAL Campus and

Secunderabad branch continuously during the period from January, 1996 to August, 1996 and from 30.8.1996 to

18.3.1997. Whereas in the cross examination witness WW1 stood firm in respect of his statement given in chief

examination. However, at one place in cross examination in reply to the question he had given the statement that it is

true that he did not work for 240 days in any year. But in the suggestions given by Respondent counsel witness has

stated that it is not true to say that he had never worked for 240 days in any year as stated by him. It is settled law

that the statement of any witness cannot be read in isolation and the whole statement has to be taken into

consideration while appreciating the evidence in the case. Whereas the claim of the Petitioner that he had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year with the Respondent is fully corroborated by oral and documentary

evidence produced by the Petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent in view of the above is not

tenable. Further, documents filed by the Petitioner in evidence goes to reveal that during the period from 1975 upto

the date of his termination i.e., 18.3.1997 workman had been engaged by Respondent for the work on number of

times with the breaks, that goes to manifest that there was the work available in the Respondent bank and also need

of engagement of the Workman. Therefore, the Workman was engaged by Respondent management on number of

times during the long period of more than 10 years and artificial breaks in the employment of Petitioner has been

created by the Respondent intentionally and deliberately in order to deprive the workman from the social security

benefit provided under the ID Act. Therefore, in view of the above, the contention of the Respondent is not tenable.

Respondent has cited number of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts which are being

discussed as hereunder:-

In the case of Bholaram vs. PO, Labour Court Ambala & ors CWP No.4784/2010 dated 2.6.2011, of Hon'ble

High Court of Punjab & Haryana, wherein Hon'ble High Court have held that Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in

the service with 50% of back wages.

Further, in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. G.M., Instrument Design D & F., DOD, dated 3.12.2010, the facts of the

case are that the Petitioner Kuldeep, the workman was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on daily wages on

8.10.1990 and he worked as such till 28.11.1991 and thereafter on adhoc basis and worked upto 26.5.1992 without

any break when his services were terminated by the employer. The Respondent management, according to Petitioner,

no notice or compensation in lieu thereof, was given for terminating his services though he had worked for 240 days

in the preceding 12 months. In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the management has terminated the

services of the Petitioner workman without complying the provision of Sec.25F of the I.D.Act, 1947 and the said

order is illegal, null and void deserves to be set aside, and ordered reinstatement of the Appellant workman with

consequential service benefits without back wages within a period of eight weeks.

Further, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi Civil Appeal No.3595-3612 of 1990 dated 10.4.2006,

therein Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court have held,

“15. We have already indicated the constitutional scheme of public employment in this country, and the executive, or

for that matter the Court, in appropriate cases, would have only the right to regularize an appointment made after

following the due procedure, even though a non-fundamental element of that process or procedure has not been

followed. This right of the executive and that of the court, would not extend to the executive or the court being in a

position to direct that an appointment made in clear violation of the constitutional scheme, and the statutory rules

made in that behalf, can be treated as permanent or can be directed to be treated as permanent.

……..

44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as

explained in S.V.NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and

referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made

and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of

tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the

light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that

context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one

time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned

posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are

undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5517

daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also

clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but

there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those

not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

Thus, in the above cited decision Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down guidelines for deciding the question of

regularization of the services of the employees. Further, as regard other decisions of Hon’ble Court filed by the

Petitioner in support of his argument, therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the

termination of the employee in contravention of the provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947 is illegal and null and

void and liable to be set aside.

Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anoop Sharma vs. Exec. Engineer Public Health Division dated

9.4.2010, Civil Appeal No.3478 of 2010 have held:-

“15. In State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money (supra), the Court emphasised that the workman cannot be

retrenched without payment, at the time of retrenchment, compensation computed in terms of Section 25-F(b).

16. The legal position has been beautifully summed up in Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar (supra) in the following words:

"The underlying object of Section 25-F is twofold. Firstly, a retrenched employee must have one month's time

available at his disposal to search for alternate employment, and so, either he should be given one month's notice of

the proposed termination or he should be paid wages for the notice period. Secondly, the workman must be paid

retrenchment compensation at the time of retrenchment, or before, so that once having been retrenched there should

be no need for him to go to his employer demanding retrenchment compensation and the compensation so paid is not

only a reward earned for his previous services rendered to the employer but is also a sustenance to the worker for the

period which may be spent in searching for another employment. Section 25-F nowhere speaks of the retrenchment

compensation being paid or tendered to the worker along with one month's notice; on the contrary, clause (b)

expressly provides for the payment of compensation being made at the time of retrenchment and by implication it

would be permissible to pay the same before retrenchment. Payment or tender of compensation after the time when

the retrenchment has taken effect would vitiate the retrenchment and non-compliance with the mandatory provision

which has a beneficial purpose and a public policy behind it would result in nullifying the retrenchment.

17. If the workman is retrenched by an oral order or communication or he is simply asked not to come for duty, the

employer will be required to lead tangible and substantive evidence to prove compliance of Clauses (a) and (b)

of Section 25-F of the Act.”

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, we

arrive at conclusion that services of workman has been terminated by the Respondent in violation of provision of I.D.

Act, 1947 and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.

Therefore, Issue No.I is answered in favour of the Workman and against the Respondent.

25.

Issue No.II:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Issue No.I, it is established that the

Workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination.

Respondent has not issued any notice under Sec.25 N of I.D.Act, 1947 before termination of workman and has not

paid any compensation as per provision contained under Sec.25 F of the I.D.Act, 1947. Therefore, the termination of

Petitioner from service vide oral order dated 31.3.1997 by the Respondent is in contravention of the provision

contained under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and is illegal and not justified and liable to be set aside.

26.

Now, let us see whether workman is entitled for reinstatement in the service or for any other relief.

In this context the reference of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant. In Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs.

Oberoi flight Services AIR 2010 SCC page 502 Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-

8. In the case of Sita Ram V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute2 this Court considered the matter thus:

"21. The question, which, however, falls for our consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in

awarding reinstatement of the appellants in service.

22. Keeping in view the period during which the services were rendered by the Respondent (sic appellants); the fact

that the Respondent had stopped its operation of bee farming, and the services of the appellants were terminated in

December 1996, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could have been directed to be

reinstated in service.

23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is required to be

exercised judiciously. Relevant factors therefor were required to be taken into consideration; the nature of

appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the court for determination

of such an issue.

24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of adequate amount of compensation in place of a

5518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would subserve the ends of justice. (See Jaipur

Development Authority v. Ramsahai [(2006) 11 SCC 684], M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748] and

Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353])

25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum of Rs.

1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned

extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs."

9. The afore-referred two decisions of this Court and few more decisions were considered by us in the case of Jagbir

JT 2008 (3)SC622 Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board3 albeit in the context of retrenchment of a

daily wager in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more than 240 days in a year

and we observed thus:

"7. It is true that earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the

termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily

follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of cases, this Court has

consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly

inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention to the

prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice."

Further, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & anr. 1996 AIR 1565, three Judge

Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court have held:-

“It is settled law that having made rules of recruitment to various services under the State or to a class of posts under

the State, the State is bound to follow the same and to have the selection of the candidates made as per recruitment

rules and appointments shall be made accordingly. From the date of discharging the duties attached to the post the

incumbent becomes a member of the services. Appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post

according to the Rules.

It is seen that the project in which the Respondents were engaged had come to an end and that, therefore, they have

necessarily been terminated for want of work. The Court cannot give any directions to re-engage them in any other

work or appoint them against existing vacancies. Otherwise, the judicial process would become other mode of

recruitment de hors the rules.

Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents contended that there was an admission in the counter

affidavit filed in the High Court that there were vacancies and that, therefore, the Respondents are entitled to be

continued in service. We do not agree with the contention. The vacancies require to be filled up in accordance with

the rules and all the candidates who would otherwise eligible are entitled to apply for when recruitment is made and

seek consideration of their claims on merit according to the Rules for direct recruitment along with all the eligible

candidates. The appointment on daily wages cannot be a conduct pipe for regular appointments which would be a

back-door entry, detrimental to the efficiency of service and would breed seeds of nepotism and corruption. It is

equally settled law that even for Class IV employees recruitment according to rules is a pre-condition. Only work-

charged employees who perform the duties of transitory nature are appointed not to a post but are required to

perform the work of transitory and urgent nature so long as the work exists. One temporary employee cannot be

replaced by another temporary employee.”

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above in the matter at hand, the

Workman has been terminated long back in the year 1997 from the service by the Respondent in contravention of the

provision contained under Section 25-F. He was working as a temporary messenger and had not worked against a

regular permanent or sanctioned post. Moreover, a period of 25 years has already been elapsed since termination of

Petitioner from Respondent service. As per record, Petitioner had worked as temporary workman for a period of

10 years i.e., from 1987 to 1997 in the Respondent employment in different spells. Therefore, keeping in view the

nature of appointment and period of his employment and in the facts and circumstances of the case the award of

compensation instead of direction for reinstatement in the service would be appropriate relief and that will subserve

the end of justice. Thus, in view of the above the Workman in this case is entitled for compensation instead of

direction for reinstatement into service.

27.

Now question arises how much compensation would meet ends of justice. In view of the circumstances of

the case, Workman has served in the service of the Respondent management from 1975 to 1997 in different spells

and has also gone under physical and mental agony during long period of litigation for more than 24 years at

different levels. In the opinion of the court payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the

Workman would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the claim statement is partly allowed.

28.

However, the learned counsel for petitioner has also argued that the petitioner Workman is entitled for

regularization in the employment of the respondent management on the basis of his empanelment in the waiting list

for regularization. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularization in the service of the management.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5519

29.

Perused the record. Petitioner has filed the claim statement with the averment that Petitioner had worked in

the respondent bank in different spells from 13^th August 1987 till 31^st March 1997. But the respondent has terminated

his services without assigning any valid reason. Further, it is alleged that respondent has retained his juniors in his

services and respondent has failed to take prior permission from government for any retrenchment. In the claim

statement there is no iota of the pleading regarding regularization of Petitioner in the service of the respondent

management. Further, in the relief clause of claim statement Petitioner has not mentioned prayer for the

regularization in the respondent employment. The relief clause of the claim statement reads out as here under:-

“I, therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an award granting me the relief of reinstatement

with full back wages, continuity of service, and all other attendant benefits .”

Thus, in the absence of any pleading and evidence in support of Petitioner’s claim of regularization in the

employment of respondent, the plea in respect of regularization is not maintainable.

In this context I would like to make reference of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sarup

Gupta(dead) by LRs v. Bishun Narain Inter College and others 1987 AIR 1242. In this case Hon’ble Supreme

Court have held:-

“It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is

also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and

material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case setup by it. The object and purpose of pleading is

to enable the advisory party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party

should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions have reiterated that evidence not supported by the pleadings is not

generally admissible. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court the evidence presented by WW1 in

respect of the claim of regularization in the employment is not admissible as there is no pleading in the claim

statement of the Petitioner to this effect. Therefore, in view of the above, the plea regarding regularization is not

tenable.

This issue is answered accordingly.

AWARD

The action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the

services of Sri G. Sathish Kumar, Temporary Messenger, with effect from 31.3.1997 is held not justified. Therefore,

termination order dated 31.3.1997 is hereby set aside. Respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

(Rupees two lakhs) to the workman within two months from the date of receipt of this award. 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 26^th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri G. Sathish Kumar

MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W2:

Photocopy of Notification

Ex.W3:

Photocopy of Application Format

Ex.W4:

Photocopy of call letter for interview

Ex.W5:

Photocopy of Panel list

Ex.W6:

Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W7:

Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W9:

Photocopy of Service certificate dt.14.8.1996

Ex.W10:

Photocopy of Service certificate dt.18.03.1997

5520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12:

Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2026

का.आ. 1122.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e, 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a31/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. 12012/204/2002-आई आर (बी-I]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2026

S.O. 1122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.31/2003) 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-12012/204/2002- 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 25^th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31/2003

Between:

Sri K. Prabhakara Rao,

S/o Ananda Rao (Late)

Elamarru (P.O.)

Pedaparupudi(M),

Krishna Dist..

… Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5521

And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Bank Street, RG-II,

Labbipet,Vijayawada – 520 003.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was

received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/204/2002-IR(B.I) dated

29.1.2003 which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication, requiring

this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in terminating

the services of Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, Ex.Temporary Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief

workman is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 31/2003 and notices were issued to both the

Workman and the management.

Petitioner has filed his claim statement and as per his claim he has worked continuously in the

Respondent organization during the period from 1988-1995 but, his services has been terminated without

any reasonable ground or following any principle and in violation of provision of ID Act and prayed to

reinstate him with all benefits from the date of his actual termination.

Respondent has filed the counter wherein he has denied the allegations made in claim statement by

the petitioner and contended that Petitioner had not worked for 240 days in 12 months of any calendar year

just preceding from date of termination. Therefore, the provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947 is not

applicable to the Petitioner case and his claim statement is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the record. As per provision contained u/s.25F of the Act, the workman has to put in 240

days continuous service just preceding from the date of his termination in a 12 month of a calendar year.

But, despite sufficient opportunity Petitioner has failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in

support of his claim of 240 days of the service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his

termination. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any oral or documentary

evidence. Therefore, ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the

25^th day of March, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

5522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISHTHA 23, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2026

का.आ. 1123.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a21/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. 12012/324/2000-आई आर (बी-I]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2026

S.O. 1123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 21/2001) 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-12012/324/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Secy.

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2001

Between:

Sri B. Dastaiah,

C/o B. Sangaiah, H.No. 8-3-228/883,

Rahmathagar Yoosafguda,

Hyderabad-45.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Personnel & HRD Department)

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad – 500 095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. V. Mallik, K. Shankar Rao, M. Madhusudhan & Galaiah Velugu, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/324/2000-IR(B.I) dated

19.04.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum

to decide the question:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 13, 2026/ज् येष् ठ 23, 1948

5523

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of Sri B. Dastaiah, Temporary/Non-Messenger, by way of oral orders with effect

from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 21/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and