This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

click here for IIIF manifest

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-19082026-275566

CG-DL-W-19082026-275566

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 24] नई दिल्ली, जून 21—जून 27, 2026, शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 31—आषाढ 06, 1948

No. 24] NEW DELHI, JUNE 21— JUNE 27, 2026, SATURDAY/JYAISHTHA 31–– ASHADHA 06, 1948

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1245.—भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम, 1934 (1934 का 2) की धारा 8 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री नागराजू मद्दिराला के स्थान पर श्री संजय लोहिया (सचिव, भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के के न्रीय बोर्ड में निदेशक के पद पर नामित करती है ।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(i)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कु मार मिश्र, अवर सचिव

4356 GI/2026

(6273)6274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2026

S.O. 1245.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Sanjay Lohiya (Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director on the Central Board of Reserve Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Nagaraju Maddirala.

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

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1246.—भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की धारा 19 के खण्ड (ड.) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री नागराजू मद्दिराला के स्थान पर श्री संजय लोहिया (सचिव, भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के के न्रीय निदेशक मंडल में निदेशक के पद पर नामित करती है ।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(ii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कु मार मिश्र, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2026

S.O. 1246.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of section 19 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Sanjay Lohiya (Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director on the Central Board of Directors of State Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Nagaraju Maddirala.

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

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1247.—भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ड.) के उप-खंड (ii) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री अनििी कु मार के स्थान पर श्री आशीष पाण्डेय, प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी, यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक (एक्जिम बैंक) के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/1/2022-आईएफ-I]

एस. के . सिंह, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2026

S.O. 1247.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (e) of sub- section (1) of section 6 of the Export-Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (No. 28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Asheesh Pandey, MD & CEO, Union Bank of India as Director on the Board of Directors of Export-Import Bank of India (Exim Bank) with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Ashwani Kumar.

[F. No. 9/1/2022-IF-I]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6275

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 17 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1248.—के न्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग), नियम, 1976 के नियम-10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर विमानन मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के अधीनस्थ कार्यालय कण्णूर अंतरराष्ट्रीय हवाईअड्डा, मट्टन्नूर, कण्णूर, के रलम-670708, जिसके 80% कार्र्मकों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

[फा. सं ई. 11014/2/2023-रा.भा.]

अमित राय, वरिष्ठ र्आर्थक सलाहकार

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2026

S.O. 1248.—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, Kannur International Airport, Mattannur, Kannur, Keralam- 670708, under Ministry of Civil Aviation, whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11014/2/2023-O.L.]

AMIT RAY, Senior Economic Advisor

सहकारिता मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1249.—बहु-राज्य सहकारी सोसायटी अधिनियम, 2002 (2002 का 39) की धारा 4 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और इस विषय पर दिनांक 5 जनवरी, 2026 की पूर्ववर्ती अधिसूचना का अधिक्रमण करते हुए, कें रीय सरकार इसके द्वारा सहकारिता मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार में संयुक्त सचिव, श्री शिव पाल सिंह, आईएफओएस (यूपी-1997) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश तक सहकारी समितियों के कें रीय पंजीयक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं A-22011/1/2026-Estt.(Coop.)]

अजित कु मार शर्मा, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COOPERATION

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2026

S.O. 1249.—In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Multi- State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and in supersession of earlier notification dated 5th January, 2026 on the subject, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shiv Pal Singh, IFoS, (UP- 1997), Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Cooperation, Government of India as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies with immediate effect and until further orders.

[F. No. A-22011/1/2026-Estt.(Coop.)]

AJIT KUMAR SHARMA, Under Secy.

6276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 12 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1250.—दिनांक 27 नवंबर, 2024 की अधिसूचना सं. एम-11019/3/2023-डीओ (एफसी) में आंशिक संसोधन करते हुए, श्रीमती अमृता खोडके दहीवेलकर तत्काल प्रभाव से कें रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड, मु ंबई के क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय के सलाहकार पैनल की सदस्य नहीं रहेंगी ।

[फा. सं एम-11016/12/2026-डीओ(एफसी)]

संतोष कु मार मौर्य, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2026

S.O. 1250.—In partial modification of Notification No. M-11019/3/2023-DO(FC) dated 27th November, 2024, Smt. Amruta Khodke Dahivelkar shall cease to be member of the Advisory Panel at the Regional Office of the Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai, with immediate effect.

[F. No. M-11016/12/2026-DO(FC)]

SANTOSH KUMAR MAURYA, Under Secy.

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2026

ंबई पोर्ट का.आ. 1251.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मु ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई-2, के पंचाट (09/2020) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 31011/02/2020- आई आर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2026

S.O. 1251.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 09/2020) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen.

[No. L-31011/02/2020– IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6277

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-2/09 of 2020

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. Mumbai Port Trust The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust S.V. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai : 400 001, State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No. 2 (Mumbai Port Trust Mazdoor Sangh) The General Secretary, Mumbai Port Trust Mazdoor Sangh, 7, Pitha Street, Off.Sir P.M. Road, Parvati Building, Mumbai : 400 001, State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management                  :       M/s. Bagale & Association.
Workmen/Union               :       No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. 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- 31011/02/2020-IR(B- II) dated 24.06.2020. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of Mumbai Port Trust in refusing upgradation of Class III Junior Engineers to Class

II as per Government guidelines, is fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief these Class III Junior

Engineers are entitled to?"

2. The case is called out today. Both parties are absent on repeated calls despite service of notices. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 16.12.2020 long back. No Statement of Claim and Written Statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner/workman to prove his case. The petitioner is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of Mumbai Port Trust in refusing upgradation of Class III Junior

Engineers to Class II as per Government guidelines, is fair, legal and justified. These

Class III Junior Engineers are not entitled to any relief.

Date-12/03/2026 JUSTICE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer6278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1252.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई-2, के पंचाट (46/2019) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12011@24@2019-आईआर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2026

S.O. 1252.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/2019) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/24/2019– IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

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-2/46 of 2019

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. Central Bank of India

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Central Bank of India,

Mumbai Metropolitan Zonal Office,

Dadabhai Navrojee Road,

Mumbai : 400 001,

State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Central Bank Employees' Union)

(Suryakant Bagale)

The General Secretary,

Central Bank Employees' Union, Mumbai,

Central Bank Building, 6th Floor,

Mumbai Main Office,

Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Mumbai : 400 001,

State: Maharashtra.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6279

APPEARANCES:

Management                  :             Mr. L.L. D'Souza.
                                          Advocate.
Workmen/Union               :             Mr. Dhruv Karnik.

Advocate.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. 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- 12011/24/2019-IR(B- II) dated 16.08.2019. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of Central Bank of India in not considering the request of Shri

Suryakant S. Bhogale, Head Cashier-II for transfer from Nariman Point to Kandivli (W)

branch is fair, legal & justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The case is called out today. Ms. Deepika Agrawal learned counsel for the respondent is present before the court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the Court since 18.12.2024 long back. No Statement of Claim and Written Statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. One application for disposal of the Reference has been moved by the respondent on 30.12.2021, in which respondent has stated that, the respondent has paid all the dues accrued upon him to the petitioner. Therefore, no cause of action is in existence till today and Reference is become infructuous. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner/union to prove his case. The petitioner is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of Central Bank of India in not considering the request of Shri Suryakant

S. Bhogale, Head Cashier-II for transfer from Nariman Point to Kandivli (W) branch

is fair, legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Date-12/03/2026 JUSTICE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1253.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स द

शिपिंग कॉपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया लिमिटेड, मेसर्स साईकृ पा फ़ू ड र्सर्वस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई-2, के पंचाट (48/2010) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-31011@01@2010-आईआर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2026

S.O. 1253.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. The Shiping Cprporation of India Limited , M/s. Saikrupa Food Service Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen.

[No. L-31011/01/2010– IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director6280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-2/48 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

First Party No. 1. M/s. The Shipping Corporation of India Limited

The Senior Vice-President (Pand) Act,

The Shipping Corporation of India Limited

Shipping House, 245,

Madam Cama Road,

Mumbai – 400021,

State: Maharashtra.

2. M/s. Saikrupa Food Service Pvt. Ltd.

The Director,

Saikrapa Food Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Raja Industrial Estate,

Gala No.3/4,

P. K. Road,

Mulund (West)

Mumbai – 400080,

State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (The Shipping House Canteen Employees' Association)

The General Secretary,

(The Shipping House Canteen Employees' Association)

P. D'Mello Bhavan, P. D'Mello Road,

Carnac Bunder,

Mumbai,

State: Maharashtra 400038.

APPEARANCES:

Management No. 1            :           Mr. S. Sharma.
                                           Advocate.
Management No. 2            :           No appearance.
Workmen/Union               :            No appearance.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6281

AWARD

(Delivered on 13-03-2026)

1. 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-31011/01/2010 (IR(B- II)) dated 20.04.2010. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether demand of the Shipping House Canteen Employees Association contract

employees for Adjustable Advance to 31 canteen employees working in the canteen of

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai is legal, just and proper? What relief the

contract employees are entitled to?"

2. The case is called out today. Ms. Vaishali M. holding brief of the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S. Sharma is present before the Court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner/union on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the Court since 04.02.2022 long back. Although Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively, but no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner 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 of the Shipping House Canteen Employees Association contract

employees for Adjustable Advance to 31 canteen employees working in the canteen of

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai is not legal, not just and not proper.

The contract employees are not entitled to any relief.

Date-13/03/2026 JUSTICE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1254.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेससस द

शिपिंग कॉपोरे शन ऑफ़ इंडिया लिमिटेड, मेससस साईकृ पा फ़ू ड सविसस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई-2, के पंचाट (49/2010) प्रकाशित करती

है।

[सं. एल-31011@02@2010-आईआर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2026

S.O. 1254.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 49/2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. The Shiping Cprporation of India Limited , M/s. Saikrupa Food Service Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen.

[No. L-31011/02/2010– IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director6282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-2/49 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

First Party No. 1. M/s. The Shipping Corporation of India Limited

The Senior Vice-President (Pand) Act,

The Shipping Corporation of India Limited

Shipping House, 245,

Madam Cama Road,

Mumbai – 400021,

State: Maharashtra.

2. M/s. Saikrupa Food Service Pvt. Ltd.

The Director,

Saikrapa Food Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Raja Industrial Estate,

Gala No.3/4,

P. K. Road,

Mulund (West)

Mumbai – 400080,

State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (The Shipping House Canteen Employees' Association)

The General Secretary,

(The Shipping House Canteen

Employees' Association)

P. D'Mello Bhavan, P. D'Mello Road,

Carnac Bunder,

Mumbai,

State: Maharashtra 400038.

APPEARANCES:

Management No. 1            :           Mr. S. Sharma.
                                        Advocate.
Management No. 2            :           No appearance.
Workmen/Union               :           No appearance.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6283

AWARD

(Delivered on 13-03-2026)

1. 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-31011/02/2010 (IR(B- II)) dated 20.04.2010. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether demand of the Shipping House Canteen Employees Association contract

employees for merger of 50% D.A. with Basic Pay of 31 canteen employees working in

the canteen of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai is legal, just and proper?

What relief the contract employees are entitled to?"

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The demand of the Shipping House Canteen Employees Association contract

employees for merger of 50% D.A. with Basic Pay of 31 canteen employees working

in the canteen of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai is not legal, not just

and not proper. The contract employees are not entitled to any relief.

Date-13/03/2026 JUSTICE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1255.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ

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

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई-2, के पंचाट (22/2019) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12011@07@2019-आईआर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2026

S.O. 1255.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/2019) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/07/2019– IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director6284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-2/22 of 2019

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

First Party No. 1 M/s. Bank of Baroda.

The Managing Director & CEO,

Bank of Baroda,

Baroda Corporate Centre,

C-26, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051.

First Party No. 2 M/s. Bank of Baroda, (HR) Administration.

The General Manager,

Bank of Baroda (HR) Administration,

Bank of Baroda Corporate Centre,

Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051.

First Party No. 3 M/s. Bank of Baroda.

The General Manager,

Bank of Baroda

Mumbai Zone, Building 3,

Walchand Hirachand Marg,

Ballard Pier, Mumbai- 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No. 4 (Rashtriya Kamgar Union)

The President,

Rashtriya Kamgar Union,

Rajlaxmi, Jn. Vaidya Marg,

Panchpakhadi, Thane- 400 602.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6285

APPEARANCES:

Management                   :             Mr. L. L. D'Souza
                                           Advocate.
Workmen/Union                :             Mr. S. N. Desai.

Advocate.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. 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-12011/07/2019-IR(B- II) dated 05.04.2019. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Kamgar Union for permanency of 60 Drivers (as

per the list attached) on the vehicle owned by the Bank of Baroda allotted to various

Executive Officers of the Bank from the date of their completing 240 days working

together with all consequential benefits as are paid to the permanent drivers of the Bank

are just and proper? If so, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?"

Sl. No. Workmen

1 Mr. Santosh Bharat Nate

2 Mr. Yashwant Shitaram Naik

3 Mr. Mahesh Chandrakant Kadam

4 Mr. Ramkumar Bhuj

5 Mr. Tanaji Shivaji Roundhal

6 Mr. Naresh Narayan Khopkar

7 Mr. Snehal Kumar Natekar

8 Mr. Amit Shankar Jadhav

9 Mr. Mahesh Gajanan Mulik

10 Mr. Ranjit Ashok Jadhav

11 Mr. Vilas Gulabrao Bhise

12 Mr. Nitin Shantaram Jadhav

13 Mr. Sirsel Sidram Hotkar

14 Mr. Pankaj Shambhu Mathkar

15 Mr. Aaba Aabhaji Mane

16 Mr. Suresh Kumar Morya

17 Mr. Maruti Ganpati Khedekar

18. Mr. Sanjay Aapa Patil

19 Mr. Ankush Arun Wagmare

20 Mr. Vikas Shivram Pawar

21 Mr. Rajesh Laxman Dhadve

22 Mr. Sachin Yashwant Mirke

6286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23 Mr. Mahesh Laxman Dhende

24 Mr. Vishnu Ramchandra Bhosle

25 Mr. Prashant Surykant Deshmukh

26 Mr. Arjun Kashinath Dhuri

27 Mr. Rajendra Subhash Mahadik

28 Mr. Suyog Suryakant Jadhav

29 Mr. Adinath Sakharamn Salvi

30 Mr. Vinod Datatray Sawant

31 Mr. Ganesh Shantaram Kadam

32 Mr. Kishore Baburao Nachre

33 Mr. Vikas Ganpat Borge

34 Mr. Vijay Baban Kamble

35 Mr. Nandkumar Shripati Revdekar

36 Mr. Prakash Chandrakant Sakpal

37 Mr. Satish Madhukar Kadam

38 Mr. Shatrugan Sharma

39 Mr. Krushnadev Kuber Gound

40 Mr. Ganesh Govind Ghadge

41 Mr. Rajesh Ramchandra Jadhav

42 Mr. Pravin Vinod Tavre

43 Mr. Sunil Sadanand Keni

44 Mr. Rahul Vilas Jogdand

45 Mr. Ramchandra Ganpat Bhogle

46 Mr. Eshwar Vishnu Tayde

47 Mr. Hemant Manohar Patkar

48 Mr. Sharad Nana Mane

49 Mr. Vinod Bhausaheb Kanse

50 Mr. Vikas Bhausaheb Kanse

51 Mr. Prabhakar Shambu Mathkar

52 Mr. Manohar Shantaram Gamre

53 Mr. Suraj Shankar Jadhav

54 Mr. Ranjit Gangaram Salunkhe

55 Mr. Shrawan Kumar D. Khartmol

56 Mr. Rajesh Ramkhilavan Yadav

57 Mr. Pappu Lalbahadur Yadav

58 Mr. Prakash Narayan Kadam

59 Mr. Sudhir Sakharam Lad

60 Mr. Tanaji Sahdev Jagtap

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6287

2. Case called out today. Ms. Deepika Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent is present before the court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner/union on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the court since 24.04.2024 long back. Although, Statement of Claim and Written Statement have been filed by the parties respectively but, no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner till today to prove his case. The petitioner 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 of Rashtriya Kamgar Union for permanency of 60 Drivers (as per the

list attached) on the vehicle owned by the Bank of Baroda allotted to various

Executive Officers of the Bank from the date of their completing 240 days working

together with all consequential benefits as are paid to the permanent drivers of the

Bank are not just and not proper. The concerned workmen are not entitled to any

relief.

Date-12/03/2026 JUSTICE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1256.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स मचेंट मरीन एजुके शन एंड रिसर्च ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई-2, के पंचाट (08/2016) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-31025@01@2016-आईआर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2026

S.O. 1256.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08/2016) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Merchant Marine Education and Research Trust and their workmen.

[No. L-31025/01/2016– IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

Presiding Officer/Link Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/08 of 2016

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. M/s. Merchant Marine Education and

Research Trust,

The Director General of Shipping &

Chairman of Merchant Marine Education and Research Trust,6288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] I-Think Techno Campus,

Beta Building,

9th Floor,

Kanjur Marg (E),

Mumbai – 400 042,

State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

Party No. 2 (Mrs. Vijaya M. Thakkar)

A-10/303, 3rd Floor,

Sector - V,

Shanti Nagar,

Mira Road (E),

Thane – 401 107,

State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management           :           Mr. L. L. D'Souza.
                                 Advocate.
Workmen              :           No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. 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-31025/1/2016 (IR(B- II)) dated 02.02.2016. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Merchant Marine Education &

Research Trust in terminating the services of Smt. Vijaya M. Thakkar, Accountant, w.e.f.

31.03.2013 vide termination letter dated 26.03.2013 after her putting in 17 year 11

months services in the establishment, without showing any reason, is just and proper? If

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

2. The case is called out today. The Learned Counsel for the respondent Ms. Deepika Agrawal is present before the Court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner/workman on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 23.04.2020. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, Statement of Claim has been filed by the petitioner, but no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner/workman to prove his case. The petitioner/workman is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner/workman 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.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6289

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Merchant Marine Education & Research

Trust in terminating the services of Smt. Vijaya M. Thakkar, Accountant, w.e.f.

31.03.2013 vide termination letter dated 26.03.2013 after her putting in 17 year 11

months services in the establishment, without showing any reason, is just and proper.

The disputant workman is not entitled to any relief.

Date-12/03/2026 JUSTICE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 17 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1257.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh;

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

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं135/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012@175@2000-आईआर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2026

S.O. 1257.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 135/2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/175/2000– IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of May, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 135/2002

[Old ID No.119/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

Sri Gogula Siva Ganganna,

3/84, Near Govt. JR. College,

Pulivendula,

Cuddapah (A.P.)-516001.

… Petitioner

And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupathi(A.P) 517501.

…..Respondent6290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/175/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.09.2000 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad for adjudication and later the same has been transferred to this Tribunal bearing ID No. 119/2000, as per orders of Central Government vide Lr.No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C.II) dated 18.10.2001, requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the State Bank of India, Cuddapah Main Branch justified in terminating Sri Gogula Siva Ganganna, Messenger, from the services of the Bank? If not, what relief he is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 135/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon'ble High Court vide its' judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon'ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon'ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

" 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6291

that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be

expedited.

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

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

common award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!;

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

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

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

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

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

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1990 to 1996, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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

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

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements6292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with that it's a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

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

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

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

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

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6293

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.

6294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 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 3rd settlement[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6295 was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon.

17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they6296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated.

19. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W8. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex. W1 is the Memorandum of marks. Ex. W2 is the Transfer certificate. Ex. W3 is the Caste Certificate. Ex. W4 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W5 is the call letter of interview. Ex. W6 is the Panel list. Ex. W7 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W8 is the Service Certificate.

21. On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. Bala Kotaiah and this witness has exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6297

Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

22. Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in this Award.

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

24. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I. Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated 27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Cuddapah main branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri G. Siva Ganganna, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by him in the claim statement?

IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25. Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

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

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

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

conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as

may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the

appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

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

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

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

6298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, "Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed." Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh.....

1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon'ble Court have held:-

"4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the

Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was

fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement,

incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section

18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not."

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6299 the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call

for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On

the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely

erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union.

Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and

Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the

union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the

"consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

"When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the

picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since

a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement

in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional

cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments.

Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That

being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is

entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

6300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been

in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period

of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of

six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in

uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized

leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due

to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year

or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date

with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less

than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

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

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

claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for

240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is

in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the

conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6301

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 .."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"

"14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the

legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect

because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New

Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur

Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman

who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months

shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact

been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a

period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one

whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on

principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman

is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days

within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e.

the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one

year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA."

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provision contained Under of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

6302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

"I was not sponsored by any Employment Exchange. I did not undergo any regular selection process

required for appointment as a Messenger in the Bank."

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

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis.

30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order.

33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order.

34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6303 claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

35. Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation's affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties.

6304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon'ble Apex Court have held:-

"Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively."

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable.

38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

"I applied in response to the advertisement issued by the bank for appointment as Messenger. Further

witness states," I do not know that the panel was prepared by the bank basing on the no. of days of service

put in by the temporary employees. I do not know that the senior employees whose names were included in

the panel were given regular appointment in the bank." …

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6305

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

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

40. However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any authority.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42. In this context the reference of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

"(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction

to order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the

provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the

status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair

labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing

to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as

regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no

posts are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the

number of years of service;

6306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 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."

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6307

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46. In view of principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

"7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review."

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon'ble High Court have held,

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act."

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

" 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the

authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the

rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation

policy of the state."

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman.

6308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

48. Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6309

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. Siva Ganganna, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri G. Siva Ganganna MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Memorandum of marks

Ex.W2: Photocopy of Transfer certificate

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Caste Certificate

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Ex.W5: Photocopy of call letter for interview

Ex.W6: Photocopy of Panel list

Ex.W7: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7: Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8: Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9: Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon'ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.986310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 17 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1258.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार Hkkjrh;

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

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय gSnjkckn के पंचाट (ं138/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012@229@2000-आईआर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2026

S.O. 1258.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 138/2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/229/2000– IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of May, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 138/2002

[Old ID No.130/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

Sri Imam Sab,

Kondakrinda Kattal,

Garladenna(M),

Kallur Distt,

Anantapur(A.P)- 515001.

… Petitioner

And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupathi(A.P) 517501. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent : Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6311

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/229/2000-IR(B.I) dated 29.09.2000 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to Industrial Tribunal No. I, Hyderabad for adjudication and later the same has been transferred to this Tribunal bearing ID No. 130/2000, as per orders of Central Government vide Lr.No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C.II) dated 18.10.2001, requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the State Bank of India, Kallur Branch is justified in terminating Sri Imam Sab, Sweeper-cum-Water Man, from the services of the Bank? If not, what relief Workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 138/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

6312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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."

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1984 to 1995, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 11 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6313 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.

6314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6315 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.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear6316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6317

The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W7. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex. W1 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W2 is the call letter of interview. Ex. W3 is the Panel list. Ex. W4 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W5 is the Service Certificate. Ex. W6 is the letter to employment exchange by Respondent. Ex. W7 is the Circular letter dated 14.07.1999.

21. On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. Bala Kotaiah and this witness has exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:-

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/986318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

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

24. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the parties, following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Kallur branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri Imam Sab, 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:-

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

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

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

conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as

may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the

appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

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

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

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6319

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).

6320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call

for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On

the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely

erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union.

Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and

Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the

union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the

"consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

"When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the

picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since

a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement

in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional

cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments.

Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That

being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is

entitled to due weight and consideration.

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6321 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.

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been

in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period

of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of

six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in

uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized

leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due

to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year

or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date

with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less

than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

6322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

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

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

claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for

240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is

in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the

conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in

Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240

days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a

particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days

as claimed."

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

Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his

alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again

reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour

Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of

reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously .."

"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

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6323

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."

In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that,

"I was not sponsored by any Employment Exchange did not undergo the regular process of selection

before my engagement as temporary Non-Messenger in the branch."

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

6324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6325 of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation's affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of6326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-

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

union in the year 1989, ….

Further, Witness states that, "The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service, put in

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

the bank in order of their seniority in the panel." Further witness states, "It is true that I am not having

any documents to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service in the bank."

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6327 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.

"(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction

to order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the

provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the

status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair

labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing

to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as

regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no

posts are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the

number of years of service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it

would be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have

been regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the

benefit would amount to a violation of Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth

Schedule of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and

continuing them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

6328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

"8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are

governed by a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without

following the provisions of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as

also the constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was

permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in

service or made permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has

completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that

his services were liable to be regularized."

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6329

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon'ble High Court have held,

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

" 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.

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 statement6330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2026/ ASHADHA 06, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontroverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

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 Imam Sab, Ex. Sweeper-cum-Waterman by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2026/ आषाढ 6, 1948 6331

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri Imam Sab MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of call letter for interview

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Panel list

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Service Certificate

Ex.W6: Photocopy of letter to employment exchange by Respondent

Ex.W7: Photocopy of circular letter dated 14.07.1999