5976 GI/2026

(8589)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 31]

नई ददल् ली, अगस्ट् त 9—अगस्ट् त 15, 2026, िजनवार/ श्रावण 18—श्रावण 24, 1948

No. 31]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 9—AUGUST 15, 2026, SATURDAY/ SHRAVAN 18– SHRAVAN 24, 1948

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

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

संचार मंत्रालय

(डाक जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 22 twu, 2026

का.आ. 1691.— केन् र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 (यथा

संिोजधत 1987) के जनयम 10 के उृ जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, डाक जवभाग के जनम् नजलजखत अधीनस्ट् थ कायालय, जजसके

80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों/कमलचाररयों ने जहन् दी का कायलसाधक ञानान प्राप् त कर जलया हज, को एतदद्वारा अजधसूजचत

करती हज:-

कायालय

(

),

डाक

कायालय,

- 462027

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

मनोज कुमार, उृ महाजनदेिक (प्रजिक्षण/राजभाषा)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-16092026-276166

CG-DL-W-16092026-276166

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-16092026-276166

CG-DL-W-16092026-276166

8590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Posts)

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2026

S.O. 1691.— In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of the

Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the

Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the General Manager (Finance)

Postal Accounts Office,

Bhopal - 462027

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Manoj Kumar, Deputy Director General (Training/OL)

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1692.— केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 ( ा

संिोजित 1987) के जन म 10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, डाक जवभाग के जनम् नजलज त अिीनस्ट् का ाल , जिसके

80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकारर ों/कमलचारर ों ने जिन् िी का का लसािक ञानान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत

करती िज:-

मु्‍ ृोस्ट्टमास्ट्टर िनरल का का ाल ,

िम्मू एवं कश्मीर सकलल,

श्रीनगर - 190 001,

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

मनोि कुमार, उृ मिाजनिेिक (प्रजिक्षण/रािभाषा)

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2026

S.O. 1692.— In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of the

Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the

Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Chief Postmaster General,

Jammu & Kashmir Circle,

Srinagar- 190 001

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Manoj Kumar, Deputy Director General (Training/OL)

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1693.— केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 ( ा

करती िज:-

का ाल ृोस्ट्टमास्ट्टर िनरल

बरेली ृररक्षेत्र,

बरेली- 243001,

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

मनोि कुमार, उृ मिाजनिेिक (प्रजिक्षण/रािभाषा)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8591

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2026

S.O. 1693.— In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of the

Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the

Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Postmaster General,

Bareilly Region,

Bareilly - 243001

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Manoj Kumar, Deputy Director General (Training/OL)

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1694.— केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 ( ा

करती िज:-

का ाल अिीक्षक डाकघर,

जिवृुरी संभाग,

जिवृुरी- 473 551

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

मनोि कुमार, उृ मिाजनिेिक (प्रजिक्षण/रािभाषा)

New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2026

S.O. 1694.— In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of

the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office of

the Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices

Shivpuri division,

Shivpuri – 473 551

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Manoj Kumar, Deputy Director General (Training/OL)

नई दिल्ली, 25 िुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1695.— केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 ( ा

करती िज:-

का ाल अिीक्षक डाकघर,

मंडला संभाग,

मंडला - 481 661

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

मनोि कुमार, उृ मिाजनिेिक (प्रजिक्षण/रािभाषा)

8592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2026

S.O. 1695.— In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of

the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office

of the Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices

Mandla division,

Mandla – 481 661

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Manoj Kumar, Deputy Director General (Training/OL)

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1696.— केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 ( ा

करती िज:-

का ाल अिीक्षक डाकघर,

जवदििा संभाग,

जवदििा- 464 001

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

मनोि कुमार, उृ मिाजनिेिक (प्रजिक्षण/रािभाषा)

New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2026

S.O. 1696.— ……………. In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official

Purposes of the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-

ordinate office of the Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices

Vidisha division,

Vidisha - 464 001

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Manoj Kumar, Deputy Director General (Training/OL)

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1697.— केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 ( ा

करती िज:-

का ाल अिीक्षक डाकघर,

सतना संभाग,

सतना – 485 001

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

मनोि कुमार, उृ मिाजनिेिक (प्रजिक्षण/रािभाषा)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8593

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2026

S.O. 1697.— In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of

the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office

of the Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices

Satna division,

Satna – 485 001

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Manoj Kumar, Deputy Director General (Training/OL)

Je ,oa jkstxkj e=ky;

नई दिल्ली, 30 िुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1698.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj स्ट्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंजड ा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj श्री जगरिा िंकर जतवारील ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; कानृूर ds iapkV (64/2013)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la0 ,y-12012/125/2012-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2026

S.O. 1698.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 64/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and Shri Girja Shanker Tiwaril.

[No. L-12012/125/2012-IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Deputy Director

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

ID Case No. 64 of 2013

Present ShriRajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)

Shri Girja Shanker Tiwaril,

S/o Shri Chhote Lal Tiwari,

C/o Shri O.P. Mathur,

117/K-36, Sarvodaya Nagar,

Kanpur (U.P.)- 208025.

…………….Workman

Vs.

(i) The General Manager,

State Bank of India,

MotiMahal, Hazratgaj,

Lucknow.

8594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) The Zonal Manager,

State Bank of India,

Mall Road,

Kanpur (U.P.)

…………………Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 24th day of April, 2026)

As per letter dated 16/05/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has been

made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') as per Notification No. L-

12012/125/2012-IR(B-I) dt.16/05/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Girja

Shanker Tiwari S/o Shri Chhote Lal Tiwari workman with effect from 01.05.1988 and not considering his

name for reemployment while reemploying others including the recruitment of fresh hands is just fair &

legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

Claimant/workman Girja Shanker Tiwari (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with

averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:

(I) Claimant/applicant was employed under the Zonal Office, State Bank Of India Kanpur in Gwaltoli

Branch, Kanpur in subordinate cadre. The service of the applicant was terminated on 01.05.1988 in violation

of the provisions of Industrial disputes Act 1947. (Central) After the termination of the service of the

applicant new hands have been employed in place of the applicant in violation of Section 25 H of the

Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

(II) The action of the employer in terminating the services of the applicant is illegal and is unfair labour

practice because the applicant was working on the permanent post, but after termination of the applicant new

hands had been employed. This is also against the principles of natural justice.

(III) The employer has done this type of unfair labour practice and illegal work and exploitation i.e. engaging

one workman and terminating his service after few days and then again engaging another person and again

terminating his services is being done with hundreds of persons. The applicant along with number of such

other victimised persons started agitation by staging Dharna, demonstrations etc. against the illegal, unfair

and unjust action of the State Bank of India.

(IV) Thereafter, due to protest of the workmen, the State Bank of India decided to hold tests/interview so that

regular and permanent appointment may be given to workmen who have already worked in the Bank.

(V) The action of the Bank in holding test/interview was illegal because under the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 the applicant was a retrenched employee and he was to be given appointment in

the Bank not on the basis of any test/interview. But directly by the Bank as provided under Section 25 H of

the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

(VI) The bank invited applications through advertisements in newspaper for giving permanent appointment

in the Bank. The applicant also applied and he appeared in the interview held in August 1991. The applicant

passed in the interview The Bank for illmotive and malafide reasons did not give permanent appointment to

the applicant. It is submitted that the intention of the Bank was not fair through out and they wanted to get

rid, by deceiving, the applicant and other workmen as such instead of giving appointment to the applicant.

the Bank kept the name of the applicant in the waiting list. The Bank for malafide reason and unfair labour

practice did not inform anything to the applicant nor published the waiting list in the news papers or

otherwise. However from the enquiries it came to the knowledge of the applicant that I have passed in the

interview and my name was in within 20 of the waiting list for giving permanent appointment in the Bank. It

is requested that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to summon the waiting of 1991 from the Bank so that

justices may be done.

(VII) Out of aforesaid waiting list of 1991 all most all the candidates have been appointed by the Bank but

the Bank has not given appointment to the applicant. This is clearly unfair labour practice and illegal action

of the Bank and it is also against the principles of natural justices.

(VIII) The Bank has hided all the information regarding result of interview, serial number in the waiting list,

how many persons have been appointed etc. from the workmen so that the workmen may not get

employment in the Bank. But it has come to the knowledge that the applicant's name was within 20 in the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8595

said waiting list. The Bank has appointed more than 200 persons who are junior in the list and new hands

than applicant. The action of the Bank is illegal and unjust by all means.

(IX) The termination of the applicant is retrenchment as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The

employer has not paid notice pay and retrenchment compensation. As such the termination of the applicant is

illegal and unjust and the applicant is entitled to the reinstatement with continuity of service and full back

wages.

(X) After the termination of the applicant so many new hand have been appointed by the Bank. As such the

action of the Bank is illegal and unjust and the applicant is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service

and full back wages.

(XI) The name of the applicant was within 20 of the waiting list of 1991. The applicant has not been given

appointment but all most all the persons from the said waiting list have been appointed. As such the action of

the Bank is illegal and unjust and the applicant is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and full

back wages.

Respondent side has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:

(i)

It is essential to mention that to abuse/misuse of the provisions of the I. D. Act 1947[14 of 1947]

instant industrial dispute has been raised by the applicant regarding his alleged termination from

01.05.1998, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. On this alone ground case is liable to be

dismissed at the very outset by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

(ii)

The alleged disengagement being of 1988&23 years have passed since then the industrial dispute

cannot be said to have survived & a stale alleged dispute can not be allowed be raised now.

(iii)

It is specific to state that to create illegal pressure upon the bank's management, General Manager,

Lucknow as well as Zonal Manager, Kanpur have knowingly been made parties by the claimant in

the present dispute whereas claimant never worked for a day in both offices. It is made clear that

relationship of employer & employee does not exist between the rival parties. In the light of above

given facts claim is legally not maintainable & is deserved to be rejected forthwith by the Hon'ble

court.

(iv)

It is clearly submitted that present case is out of ambit of continuous service as defined in section 25

B of the act because applicant never pleaded before the A.L.C. [C] that he had worked for 240 days

at Gwaltoli Branch, Kanpur therefore provisions of section 25 F do not attract in the instant matter.

(v)

It is necessary to add that claimant was not engaged in the bank against any post. To enrich our

contention it is narrated here that there is a prescribed procedure for appointment in the respondent

bank, which is evident from fact that appointment letter was not filed by the applicant along with

his claim statement before the Hon'ble Court.

(vi)

It is mentioned here that panels of suitable persons were prepared by the selection committee after

conducting interviews of eligible persons & list of successful persons was published at notice board

of the bank at relevant point of time. It has to be informed that thereafter a settlement on 09.06.95

was entered into between above referred parties before Shri A. Prabhakar Regional Labour

Commissioner [Central], Hyderabad that panels of temporary employees & daily wagers will be

kept alive upto March 1997 & after lapse of said date claim of persons empanelled is not tenable in

the eyes of law as settled by Apex Court as well as various High Court.

(vii)

In reply to assertions of paras 12 & 13 of the claim it is submitted here that claimant was never

appointed in bank hence question of his alleged retrenchment does not arise. It is submitted that

even if the self serving allegation of the claimant is accepted that he has worked and that

subsequently during the process of giving chance of absorption, he was invited for interview, the

said process of holding interview conducted in terms of settlements constitutes compliance of

section 25 H of the I.D. Act as has been held by the Hon'ble Supteme Court in Regional Manager

S.B.I. V. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari AIR 2006 S.C. 839. Also even if the self serving statement of the

claimant is further accepted that his name was included in the panel of candidates wait listed for

appointment against future vacancies but he is not found entitled to get claimed relief in the light of

view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court that wait listed candidates can not have a valid claim to any post

upon the lapse of the wait list panel.

(viii)

In claim statement is mere reiterations. It is clearly submitted that applicant is not entitled to get

relief claimed from the hon'ble court. In the light of afore-mentioned true facts claim has no force of

law & on the face of given reply case may be turned down by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

After that applicant filed rejoinder against written statement filed by opposite party is read as under:

8596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. The contents of Para No. 1 of the written statement of the employer is wrong, baseless and

against the provision of Law hence are not admitted. In reply it is submitted that the services of the

applicant has been illegally and unjustly terminated by the employer. The termination of the

applicant is retrenchment. The employer has appointed new hands but has not given chance to the

applicant as required under section 25 H of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The Labour Law is for

the welfare and protection from the exploitation of workmen i.e. weaker section of the society.

Therefore the law makers, i.e the Parliament of the country, keeping all these facts and

circumstances in mind and past experienced did not mention any time limit for reemployment of

retrenched workers in section 25 H of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. In view of these submissions

no one including all courts of the country can and should not impose any time limit for raising such

dispute in the name of old cases or belated case. As Such the objection is baseless and misconceived

and is liable to be rejected.

2. The contents of Para No. 6 of the written statement of the employer are wrong, baseless and

misconceived hence are not admitted. In reply it is submitted that the applicant was engaged against

a clear post. The Opposite Party Bank is a very big exploiter, The Opposite party engaged the

applicant and after termination engaged another person. Thus the Bank has engaged number of

persons. The action of the employer is unfair labour practices, malafide and exploitation of poor

workers and action of the employer is to be condemned.

3. The contents of Para No. 12 of the written statement as are stated are not correct hence are not

admitted. In reply it is submitted that the settlement at Hyderabad has no concerned or meaning

with Kanpur employees. It is also submitted that the applicant was never member of any union or

federation as such the agreement signed by the so called union or federation is not binding upon the

applicant. This is a fraud done by the Bank to befool the employees who were demanding

reinstatement as per law. The citations of the rulings are not mentioned in the para under reply as

such no proper comments can be offered on it. However it is submitted that if full facts of the case

before the Hon'ble court were submitted the decision must have been in favour of the employees.

Applicant filed some documents which are read as under:

1. Certificate issued by the Employer.

2. Certificate issued by the employer.

3. List of employees employed after my termination.

4. Employer application dated 18.5.1996

5. Proof of agitation, paper cuttings 12.

In rebuttal opposite party some documents which are read as under:

1. Copy of settlement dated 17.11.1987.

2. Copy of settlement dated 27.10.1988.

3. Copy of settlement dated 09.01.1991.

4. Copy of settlement dated 09.06.1995.

Main question in this reference is that Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India terminating the

services of Shri Girja Shanker Tiwari S/o Shri Chhote Lal Tiwari workman with effect from 01.05.1988 and not

considering his name for reemployment while reemploying others including the recruitment of fresh hands is just fair

& legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

Applicant said that he was employed in opposite party bank. His service was terminated on 01.05.1988 against the

provision of Industrial Dispute Act and against the termination of the service of the applicant new hands have been

employed in place of applicant. This is unfair labour practice because applicant was working on the permanent post.

Due to protest of workmen, opposite party decided to hold test/interview so that regular and permanent appointment

may be given to workmen who have already worked in the Bank. The applicant was a retrenched employee and he

was to be given appointment in the Bank not on the basis of any test/interview as provided ID Act. The applicant

applied and he appeared in the interview held in August 1991. The applicant passed in the interview but due to

illmotive and malafide reasons bank did not give permanent appointment to the applicant. The bank kept the name of

the applicant in the waiting list. The bank for malafide reason and unfair labour practice did not inform anything to

the applicant nor published the waiting list in the news papers or otherwise.

Against that opposite party said in our written statement that the alleged disengagement being of 1988 and after 23

years the industrial dispute cannot be raised. It is also made clear that relationship of employer and employee does not

exist between the rival parties and this case is out of ambit of continuous service as defined in section 25 B of the Act.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8597

The applicant was not engaged in the bank against any post and never appointed in the bank hence the question of his

alleged retrenchment does not arise. It is also mentioned here that panels of suitable persons were prepared by the

selection committee after conducting interviews of eligible persons and list of successful persons was published at

notice board of the bank.

Now the main question is applicant is working on permanent post as stated in para 2 of the our claim statement.

Applicant filed by paper number 10/2 certificate issued by the employer in this certificate the applicant worked in the

bank as Temporary Messenger on daily wages from 03.02.1987 to 22.05.1987 for 89 days only. In paper number 10/3

certificate issued by the employer in this certificate the applicant worked in the bank as a casual labour for 89 days

from 02.02.1988 to 30.04.1988 and in paper number 10/4 list of employees employed after my termination i.e. Ram

Chandra, Ajay Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Satish Chandra.

To decide above question the documentary/oral evidence of the parties are important.

On perusal of the record it emerged out that the applicant filed an applicant for summoning of documents which are as

under:

1. Vouchers of three years relating to newly appointed employees after terminating the service of worker.

2. The result of interview held in 1991 in which applicant had appeared along with its waiting list.

3. Seniority list of sub staff with the date of appointment under SBI Zone Office, Kanpur.

4. Copy of application dated 18.05.1996 filed by employer in ID case no. 03 of 1987.

In rebuttal written objection has been filed by opposite party bank.

On 24.04.2018 this Tribunal has passed an order which is read as under:

I have heard parties auth. Representatives on the application of the worker for summoning documents from

the management and its objection filed by the management.

The reference in the Industrial Dispute is with regard to the termination of the worker and for not

considering his name for re-employment while employing others.

Worker has requested to summon vouchers of three years relating to newly appointed employees after

terminating the service of worker. The prayer cannot be allowed as worker has not named any newly

appointed person whose voucher is requested.

Worker has also requested to summon the result of the interview held in 1991 in which worker had appeared

along with its waiting list. A.R. for the management admitted that the list is available with them.

Likewise prayer for summoning seniority list of sub staff with the date of appointment under SBI Zone Office

Kanpur cannot be allowed as it is not relevant for the disposal of the case.

Worker has also requested to summon copy of application dated 18.05.96 filed by employer in ID case no.

3/87. This prayer of worker cannot be allowed as worker may obtain certificate copy of it and can file in this

case.

For the reasons given above the application of the worker is partly allowed and the management is directed

to file the result of interview held in 1991 along with waiting list as prayed in Para 4 of the application.

In compliance of the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by this Tribunal, opposite party filed an affidavit along with

office order/messenger report with specific contention that result of interview as well as wait list prepared in year

1991 could not be located or traced even after best efforts of concerned staff, as more than 27 years have been lapsed

and H.R. section premises, where interviews were conducted, had been transferred on different places in different

point of time during the intervening period.

The applicant examined himself as W.W.1 in our chief examination he supported our claim statement, and in para 2

said that after the completion of the all formalities he appointed in sub ordinate cadre for permanent post. Further he

said as stated in our claim statement. In our cross-examination he said that I did not issue any letter of protest to SBI

Gwaltoli Branch after my termination on 01.05.1988. I was born 01.01.1969, the witness shows his Adhar card, Pan

card and Driving License showing his date of birth as 01.01.1969. I was engaged as a casual labour. I can produce

original of the said certificate issued by Branch Manager on 31.05.1988. I have not mentioned that I worked for 240

days in preceding Twelve months prior to termination on 01.05.1988. My attendance was not recorded in the

attendance register of other SBI staff. My wages were paid through Bankers Cheque. I was not given wages for

Sunday and other holidays except for 15^th August and 26^th January. I have not mentioned that after my termination on

01.05.1988 Ram Chandra, Ajay Kumar and Satish Chandra were engaged. I have not filed any document regarding

engagement of those persons by O.P. I did not come across any notification issued for reengagement of terminated

workmen by the Bank. No appointment letter was issued to me before my engagement. I did not come across any

8598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

news item that post of Messenger in SBI Gwaltoli Branch was lying vacant before my engagement. No call letter for

interview was received by me. I did not see the list of successful candidates. I did not file any application form prior

to appearing in the interview.

Applicant said in our claim statement in para 2 and in our chief examination of para 2 that applicant was working on

permanent post and in our chief examination of para 2 again repeated above. He also said that after complying of all

formalities he was appointed but as per his documentary evidence which is filed by applicant as mentioned above ‘the

applicant was appointed as temporary messenger for daily wages from 03.02.1987 to 22.05.1987 for 89 days.

Further as his documentary evidence ‘he worked as a casual labour for 89 days from 02.02.1988 to 30.04.1988’.

In our cross-examination as mentioned above he said that I do agree in the certificate dated 31.05.1988 it is stated I

was engaged as a casual labour hence applicant admitted that he was engaged as casual labour as shown in his above

certificates.

Now as the question of work 240 days applicant, applicant said in our cross-examination of page 2, I have not

mentioned that I worked for 240 days in previous twelve months prior to his termination on 01.05.1988. The applicant

is not mentioned in his claim statement that he worked for 240 days as he said in our cross-examination above. And

other worked concerned the applicant said my attendance was not recorded the attendance register of other SBI staff.

My wages were paid through Bankers Cheque. I was not given wages for Sunday and other holidays except for 15^th

August and 26^th January. I have not mentioned that after my termination on 01.05.1988 Ram Chandra, Ajay Kumar,

Rakesh Kumar and Satish Chandra were engaged. I have not filed any documents regarding engagement of those

persons. Hence applicant is admitted that reengagement of above persons not mentioned in his claim statement. No

appointment letter was issued to me before my engagement. No call letter interview was received by me. I did not see

the list of successful candidates. I did not file any application form prior to appearing in the interview.

Applicant said in our claim statement as mentioned above that he is working on a permanent post and further he said

he was retrenched employee and he also applied and appeared in the interview held in August, 1991 but he have not

filed any documents as interview letter. He said he was working on the permanent post but he have no any

appointment letter, pay slip etc. which shows that he was permanent employee as stated in his claim statement. He

never seen the list of successful candidates.

Opposite party is a nationalised bank there is procedure of appointment in all cadre. After adopting above procedure

opposite party bank appoint any person as per criteria.

The applicant said that there is violation of section 25-H of the Act. Section 25-H is said that:

25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen- Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer

proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an

opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and

such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other

persons.

But there is no any evidence that opposite party doing violation of section 25-H of the Act. One side applicant said

that he was working on permanent post and he further said he was retrenched employee. He never worked in any

calendar year for 240 day as he admitted.

As per the question of benefits of Section 25-B of the Act which is as read as under:

[25-B. Definition of continuous service- For the purpose of this Chapter-

(1) a workmen 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 authorised 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; [25-B. Definition of continuous service

(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;

(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six 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) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8599

Now the question whether the applicant is employee of opposite party Bank. As per the question of the employer and

workman in the ID Act, there is a workman definition in section 2 (s) is read as under:

"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms

of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that

dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [one thousand rupees] per

menses or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested

in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

And employer definition is given in section 2 (g) is read as under:

“employer” means-

(i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of '[the Central

Government or a State Government] the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is

prescribed, the head of the department;

(ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer of that

authority;

In view of the above, the applicant has failed to prove the existence of a valid employer-employee relationship or the

completion of 240 days of service. Therefore, the action of the Management in ceasing the engagement of the

applicant is held to be just, proper, and legal.

The claim of the applicant is hereby dismissed. The applicant is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement, back

wages, or compensation.

Accordingly, the reference is answered in the negative. The claimant is not entitled to any relief. A 'Nil' Award is

hereby passed.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 24.04.2026

RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 twu, 2026

का.आ. 1699.— औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a48/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la. ,y - 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-146]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2026

S.O. 1699.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.48/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-146]

SALONI, Deputy Director

8600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 16^th day of April, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 48/2003

[Old ID No. 4/1999 of Labour Court, Guntur]

Between:

Sri Gollamudi Adam,

S/o Subba Rao,

Old Ponur,

Ward No.25,

Murthy Mahal,

Ponnur. Guntur District.

… Petitioner

And

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Ponnur Village & Mandalam,

Guntur District.

The Chief General Manager,

Local Head Office,

State Bank of India, Koti,

Bank Street,

Hyderabad.

…..Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Gollamudi Adam, who worked as Messenger (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents State Bank of India seeking for

reinstatement into service as Messenger duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service,

back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deem fit. Earlier Petitioner

has filed this dispute before the Labour Court, Guntur for adjudication and later the same has been transferred to this

Tribunal bearing ID No. 4/1999, as per orders of Central Government vide Lr.No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C.II) dated

18.10.2001 and registered, numbered in this Tribunal as LC No. 48/2003.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the

aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ

petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State

Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to

their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy

arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch

petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of

2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8601

Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal

was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

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

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

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

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

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

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

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

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch

cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the

aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated

20.3.2019.

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

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

The Petitioner have joined the service of the Respondent Bank and worked from 1987 to 1997 and rendered

unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years. It is submitted that the services of the Petitioner were

terminated with verbal orders dt. 31.03.1997 without assigning any valid reasons. But the Respondent has retained

Petitioner’s juniors in service. The Respondent has failed to take the prior permission from the government for his

retrenchment. It is submitted that he could not secure any alternative employment till date inspite of his best efforts.

It is submitted that there is sufficient work with the Respondent and extending the opportunities to others denying the

Petitioner is unjust and contrary to law. Hence, the action of the Respondent is not justified. Therefore, it is prayed

to grant the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and all attendant benefits.

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

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

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

the Government of India and RBI on hiring.

It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the

employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of

temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and

who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for

absorption and permanent appointments. Various discussions were held to resolve the said issue, resulting in five

settlement agreements between the Bank and the Workmen.

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

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

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

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

8602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

based conciliation.

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

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

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

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

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

01.07.1975 to 31.07.1988.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

11.

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

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

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

12.

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

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

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

13.

The Workman (WW1) filed and relied on documents Ex.W1 to W3, including appointment letters, interview

letters, and service certificates showing employment across various periods. The Respondent examined MW1, Sri

K. Chandra Sekhar Goud, and produced 12 documents (Ex.M1–M12), including all five settlements, panel details,

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

14.

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

this Award.

15.

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

16.

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

points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

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

services of Workman Sri Gollamudi Adam, a Temporary/Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is

justified?

II.

To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8603

Findings:-

17.

Issue No.I:- The Workman alleged that Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997

without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof illegally. Further, he alleges that he

has been terminated from service in violation of provision contained under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947 and same

is liable to be set aside.

18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

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

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

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

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

that behalf contained therein; or

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

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

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

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

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

Section 25F provides:-

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

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

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

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

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

average payfor every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

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

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

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

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

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

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court are relevant as discussed here under:-

8604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

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

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

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

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

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

erroneously ..”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant

date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move

backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the

period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively

answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed

that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification

enacted in Section 25-F"

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

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

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

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

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

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

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter

VA.”

19.

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

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

1947, we have to examine whether Workman herein has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his

claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e.,

31.3.1997 by his evidence.

20.

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

and in his oral testimony WW1 has stated that he joined the service of Respondent at Ponnur Branch, on 28.7.87 as a

Messenger and worked continuously in various branches depending upon the availability of work and also as per the

orders of bank officers till 31.3.1997. WW1 states that the Respondent has not given any advance notice to him

before his termination and has not obtained prior permission from central government for his retrenchment and

Respondent has not given him any order of termination. Further, WW1 states that he had worked Ponnur branch of

the Respondent and Ex.W1 is the Service certificate for 1296 days for the period of July 1987 to March, 1997. Ex.

W2 is the Copy of representation. Ex. W3 is the acknowledgement of Ex.W2 representation.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8605

21.

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

period of time and he worked for 260 days continuously during the period from April, 1996 to March, 1997, Ex.W1 is

the certificate in this regard. Further, WW1 states that there were no complaints against him from any customers or

officers of the Respondent throughout the period of his service. This Witness was cross examined by the Respondent

counsel and in his cross examination the WW1 states that he was given appointment as a messenger on temporary

basis in the year 1987. Further, witness states that he was not sponsored by any employment exchange. Further,

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

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

he did not work for 240 days in any year in his service.

Month

Working days

April,1996

May, 1996

June, 1996

July, 1996

August, 1996

September, 1996

October, 1996

November, 1996

December, 1996

January, 1997

February, 1997

March, 1997

Total

260

Thus, sum of working days as shown in the above table is 260 days which is more than 240 working days as required

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

22.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industrial Court after about 9 to 23 years."

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

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

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

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

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

Act, 1947.

24.

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

worked for more than 240 days continuously in different spells in a period of one year. He worked for 1296 days

continuously during the period from July, 1987 to March, 1997 at Ponnur branch. Ex.W1 is the certificate in this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tenable. Further, documents filed by the Petitioner in evidence goes to reveal that during the period from 1987 upto

the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997 workman had been engaged by Respondent for the work on number of

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

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

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

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

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

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

discussed as hereunder:-

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

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

the service with 50% of back wages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8607

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

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

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

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

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

void and liable to be set aside.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of Section 25-F of the Act.”

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

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

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

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

25.

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

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

8608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

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

26.

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

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

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

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

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

awarding reinstatement of the appellants in service.

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

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

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

reinstated in service.

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

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

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

of such an issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and we observed thus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court have held:-

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

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

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

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

according to the Rules.

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

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

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

recruitment de hors the rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8609

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

replaced by another temporary employee.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

direction for reinstatement into service.

27.

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

the case, Workman has served in the service of the Respondent management from 1987 to 1997 in different spells and

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

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

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

28.

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

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

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

29.

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

the Respondent bank in different spells from 28.7.1987 till 31^st March 1997. But the Respondent has terminated his

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

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

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

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

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

“to set aside the termination order dated 1.4.97 of the claimant and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Claimant

into service with continuity of service together with back wages and all attendant benefits, etc.,”

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

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

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

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

Court have held:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tenable.

This issue is answered accordingly.

AWARD

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

services of Sri Gollamudi Adam, Temporary Messenger, with effect from 31.3.1997 is held not justified. Therefore,

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

(Rupees two lakhs) to the workman within two months from the date of receipt of this award. Reference is answered

accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed

by me on this the 16^th day of April, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

8610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Gollamudi Adam

MW1: Sri K. Chandra Sekhar Goud

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photocopy of Service Certificate dated NIL

Ex.W2:

Photocopy of representation

Ex.W3:

Photocopy of ack.of representation Ex.W2

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

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

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

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

dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

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

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

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

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

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

Ex.M6:

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

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

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

Ex.M12:

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

नई दिल्ली, 29 tqykbZ, 2026

का.आ. 1700.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (सन्िभल

सं्‍ ा 30/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[la0-,y-12012/201/2002-vkbZ-vkj-( बी-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2026

S.O. 1700.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.30/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of SBI

of India and their workmen,

[F. No. L-12012/201/2002 – IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Deputy Director

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8611

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 9^th day of June, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 30/2003

Between:

Sri A. Appa Rao,

S/o Ramaiah,

Totacheria,

Munagacheria (P.O.)

Panuganchiproul,

Krishna Distt.

……Petitioner

AND

The Asst. General manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, RG-II,

Labbipet, Vijayawada – 520 003.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-12012/201/2002- IR(B.I) dated 29.1.2003

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of State Bank of India and their workman. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

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

of Sri A. Appa Rao, Ex.Temporary Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 30/2003 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Petitioner has filed his claim statement and as per his claim she has worked for more than 240 days in the

Respondent organization during the period from 1.1.1985 to 31.12.1986 but, his services has been terminated

without any reasonable ground or following any principle and in violation of provision of ID Act of law and prayed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sufficient opportunity petitioner failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his claim of 240

days of the service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination. Therefore, the claim of the

Petitioner is not substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9^th day of

June, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

8612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2026/ SHRAVAN 24, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 tqykbZ, 2026

का.आ. 1701.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (सन्िभल सं्‍ ा

43/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[la0-,y-39025/01/2026-vkbZ-vkj-( बी-II)-83]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2026

S.O. 1701.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (.No.LC.43/2003) of the Central Government Industrial 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-39025/01/2026- IR (B-II)- 83]

SALONI, Deputy Director

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: -

Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of June, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 43/2003

[Old ID No. 30/2000 of Labour Court, Guntur]

Between:

Sri S. Devadas,

S/o Kondaiah,

Parakondapadu village,

Gudluru Mandal,

Prakasam distt.

… Petitioner

And

The Chairman,

State Bank of India,

Central office,

Mumbai.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 15, 2026/ श्रावण 24, 1948

8613

The Chief General Manager,

(Personnel)

State Bank of India,

Bank Street

Hyderabad.

The Zonal Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal office,

Tirupathi.

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Kondepi branch.

Prakasam District.

…..Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. S. Prasada Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri S. Devadas who worked as Messenger (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents State Bank of India seeking for

reinstatement into service as Messenger duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service,

back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deem fit. Earlier Petitioner

has filed this dispute before the Labour Court, Guntur for adjudication and later the same has been transferred to

this Tribunal bearing ID No. 30/2000, as per orders of Central Government vide Lr.No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C.II)

dated 18.10.2001 and registered, numbered in this Tribunal as LC No. 43/2003.

Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye

view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch

cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of

the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved

Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and

set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of

India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their

termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises.

This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was

challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The

aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of

Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased

to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

“ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial

Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the

proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly,

in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the

length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for

each one of them, who have worked etc. All these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case