This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

click here for IIIF manifest

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23092026-276411

CG-DL-W-23092026-276411

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 33] नई दिल्ली, अगस्त 23—अगस्त 29, 2026, शनिवार/ भाद्र 1—भाद्र 7, 1948

No. 33] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 23— AUGUST 29, 2026, SATURDAY/ BHADRA 1–– BHADRA 7, 1948

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1825.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश।

एतद् द्वारा, कें द्र सरकार, अगस्त 20, 2026 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के निर्वहन करने के लिए भारतीय मिशनों/पोस्टों में सहायक कांसुलर अधिकारियों के रूप में इस मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों की नियुक्ति करता है:

6349 GI/2026

(9543)9544 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2026(15)]

तरुण कु मार, अवर सचिव (सीपीवी-II)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2026

S.O. 1825.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad, to perform Consular services with effect from August 20, 2026:

[F. No. T.4330/01/2026 (15)]

TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy.(CPV-II)

कामिक, लोक शिकायत और पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कामिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 1826. —के न्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 की अधिनियम सं. 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मिज़ोरम राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना ज्ञापन सं. सी-13015/4/2026–वीआईजी, आइजोल, दिनांक 23.02.2026, सतर्क ता विभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मति से लेंगपुई में भारतीय वायु सेना के लिए भूमि अधिग्रहण की प्रक्रिया में 188 करोड़ (लगभग) रूपए के सार्वजनिक धन का अभिकथित गंभीर भ्रष्टाचार, आधिकारिक पद का दुरुपयोग एवं आपराधिक षड्यंत्र के संबंध में तुइखुहतलांग, आइजोल के श्री लालपियनफे ला चावंगथु, अधिवक्ता, उपाध्यक्ष, एमएनएफ विधि बोर्ड एवं महासचिव, मिज़ो नेशनल फ्रं ट, महामुख्यालय से श्री रोहमिगलियाना, वैवाकवन, आइजोल, श्री हेनरी लालरेमसांगा ह्लॉनमुअल, बोंगकवन, आइजोल एवं किन्हीं अन्य गैर सरकरी व्यक्तियों अथवा लोक सेवकों के विरुद्ध मुख्य सतर्क ता अधिकारी, मिजोरम सरकार द्वारा दिनांक 05.02.2026 को प्राप्त शिकायत के आधार पर प्रारंभिक पूछताछ एवं नियमित मामला दर्ज करने हेतु दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार मिज़ोरम राज्य के भीतर समस्त क्षेत्रों में करती हैI

[फा. सं. 228/34/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9545

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2026

S.O. 1826.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Mizoram, issued vide Notification Memo No. C-13015/4/2026-VIG, Aizawl, Dated 23.02.2026, Vigilance Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in any area within the State of Mizoram for conducting PE/RC pursuant to the complaint dated 05.02.2026 received by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Government of Mizoram, from Shri. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, Advocate, Vice Chairman, MNF Legal Board & General Secretary, Mizo National Front, Gen. Hqrs, resident of Tuikhuahtlang, Aizawl, alleging grave corruption, abuse of official position and criminal conspiracy in the process of acquisition of land for India Air Force at Lengpui, involving public money amounting to ₹ 188 Crores (approx.) against Shri Rohmingliana of Vaivakawn, Aizawl, Shri Henry Lalremsanga Hlawnmual, Bawngkawn, Aizawl, and any other private individuals or public servants.

[F. No. 228/34/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 1827.—कें द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का के न्द्रीय

अधिनियम 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए अधिसूचना सं.

जी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं. 163/2025/गृह, तिरुवनंतपुरम, दिनांक 26.08.2025, गृह (एम) विभाग, (एस.आर.ओ. सं.

984/2025) और शुद्धि पत्र अधिसूचना सं. जी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं. 83/2026/गृह, तिरुवनंतपुरम, दिनांक 25.03.2026,

गृह (एम) विभाग, (एस.आर.ओ. सं. 445/2026) के माध्यम से जारी के रल राज्य सरकार की सम्मति से श्री प्रमोद कु मार

सविता, अधीक्षक, सीमा शुल्क आयुक्त (निवारक) का कार्यालय, कोचीन, के रल के विरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम,

1988 की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (2) सपठित उप-धारा (1) का खंड (ई) एवं भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988

(2018 के के न्द्रीय अधिनियम 16 द्वारा यथा संशोधित) की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (2) सपठित उप-धारा (1) का खंड (बी)

के तहत कारित उक्त अधिनियमो के अंतर्गत दंडनीय अपराधों एवं इस मामले के संबंध में, उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न संव्यवहार

के क्रम में कारित किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और

क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार समस्त के रल राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/38/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2026

S.O. 1827.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No. G.O.(Ms.) No.163/2025/HOME, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 26.08.2025, Home (M) Department, (S.R.O. No. 984/2025) and Errata Notification No. G.O.(Ms.) No. 83/2026/HOME, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 25.03.2026, Home (M) Department, (S.R.O. No. 445/2026), hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Kerala for the investigation of offences punishable under sub section (2) read with clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and sub-section (2) read with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by the Central Act 16 of 2018) against Shri Pramod Kumar Savita, Superintendent, O/o the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Cochin, Kerala for commission of offences punishable under the said acts and any other offences committed in the course of transaction arising out of the same fact, in regard to this case.

[F. No. 228/38/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1828.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 की के न्द्रीय अधिनियम सं. XXV) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंजाब राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना ज्ञापन सं.: गृह–एचएम-40विविध/25/2024-4एच4/I/1366839/2026, दिनांक 13.04.2026, गृह विभाग (गृह-4 शाखा) के माध्यम से जारी सम्मति से भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 (वर्ष 2018 में यथा संशोधित) की धारा 7 के तहत दंडनीय अपराधों के लिए श्री गुरजीत सिह, एसएसई (ड्राविग्स) इंजीनियरिग विभाग, पटियाला लोकोमोटिव वक्र्स (पीएलडब्ल्यू), पटियाला, पंजाब के विरुद्ध दिनांक 15.04.2026 को दर्ज किए गए आरसी 0052026ए0008 में पंजीकरण एवं अन्वेषण हेतु दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार (कार्योत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 15.04.2026 से) पंजाब राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/40/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2026

S.O. 1828.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act no. XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Punjab, issued vide Notification Memo No.: HOME-HM-40MISC/25/2024- 4H4/I/1366839/2026, Dated 13.04.2026, Department of Home Affairs (Home-4 Branch), hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Punjab (ex post facto w.e.f. 15.04.2026) for registration and investigation in RC0052026A0008 registered on 15.04.2026 against Shri Gurjeet Singh, SSE (Drawings) Engineering Department, Patiala Locomotive Works (PLW), Patiala, Punjab for the offences punishable under section 7 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

[F. No. 228/40/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1829.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री अनुपम एस शर्मा, अधिवक्ता को, अपर सेशन न्यायाधीश, साके त

न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली के न्यायालय में, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (कें द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित, मामला संख्या

आरसी14/2023- ईओ-II, से उद्भूत होने वाली दांडिक पुनरीक्षण संख्या 488/2025 के अभियोजन का और तत्समय

प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी उच्चतर न्यायालय में इससे उद्भूत होने वाले किन्हीं अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने हेतु,

कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से मामले का निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/2/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2026

S.O. 1829.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government appoints Shri Anupam S. Sharrma, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting Criminal Revision number 488/2025 arising out of case number RC14/2023-EO-II instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) before the Court of ASJ, Saket Court, New Delhi or any other matters arising out of such cases in any higher court established by law with effect from date of assumption of charge to till disposal of the case or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/2/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1830.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का के न्द्रीय अधिनियम XXV) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना ज्ञापन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-411/2026-2227, रांची, दिनांक 13.04.26, गृह, कारागार एवं आपदा प्रबंधन विभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मति से शाखा प्रमुख, सीबीआई, एसीबी, रांची के दिनांक 01.04.2026 के पत्र संख्या 269/2026-आर के माध्यम से किए गए अनुरोध पर श्री रवि रंजन कु मार, प्रबंधक, के न्द्रीय भंडारण निगम (सीडब्ल्यूसी), हजारीबाग, सीडब्ल्यूसी, उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार के विरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम-1988 (वर्ष 2018 में यथा संशोधित) की धारा 7 के तहत कारित अपराध के लिए दिनांक 23.04.2026 को पंजीकृ त आरसी0242026ए0006 में तथा इस मामले के अन्वेषण के दौरान प्रकाश में आए किसी अन्य अपराध सहित ऐसे एक या उससे अधिक अपराधों से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध किसी दुष्प्रयास, दुष्प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न किसी अन्य अपराध(धों) में मामले का पंजीकरण और अन्वेषण करने हेतु दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार (दिनांक 23.04.2026 से कार्योत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्त झारखंड राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/41/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2026

S.O. 1830.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-411/2026-2227, Ranchi, Dated 13.04.2026, Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department upon request made vide letter number 269/2026-R, dated 01.04.2026 of Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of all the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Jharkhand (ex post facto w.e.f. 23.04.2026) for registration and investigation in RC0242026A0006 registered on 23.04.2026 against Shri Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), Hazaribagh, CWC, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Govt. of India for committing offence u/s 7 of PC Act-1988 (As amended in 2018) and any other offences that may come to light during investigation of this case including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation or in connection with one or more such offences and/or any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/41/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1831. —कें द्रीय सरकार दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का के न्द्रीय अधिनियम 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, राजस्थान राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. एफ.19(8)गृह-5/2026, जयपुर, दिनांक: 17.04.2026, गृह (जीआर.-V) विभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मति से के न्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो, भ्रष्टाचार निरोधक शाखा, जोधपुर में पंजीकृ त मामला सं.

आरसी0312026ए0002 में सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी अधिनियम, 2000 तथा इससे संबंधित किन्हीं अन्य धाराओं के तहत आरोपी फर्मों/कं पनियों अथवा व्यक्तियों द्वारा कथित रूप से कारित अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सभी सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार राजस्थान राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/43/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव9548 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2026

S.O. 1831.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No.F.19(8)Home-5/2026, Jaipur, Dated: 17.04.2026, Home (Gr.-V) Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of all the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Rajasthan for investigation of the offences under IT Act, 2000 in Case No. RC0312026A0002 registered at CBI, ACB, Jodhpur and any other sections incidental thereto, allegedly committed by the accused firms/companies or persons.

[F. No. 228/43/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1832.— कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री अमितवा मैत्रा, अधिवक्ता को, नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ 3 में

उल्लिखित न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन, (के न्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित, उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ (2) में उल्लिखित मामलों (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में मुख्य रूप से मतदानोत्तर हिसा मामलों के रूप में ज्ञात) के अभियोजन का और ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत, अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों का तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किन्हीं अपील या

पुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों में संचालन करने हेतु, राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से मामले का निपटान होने

तक या अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है, अर्थात् :-

सारणी

[फा. सं. 225/4/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2026

S.O. 1832.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Amitava Maitra, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of the cases (popularly known as Post Poll Violence cases of the State of West Bengal) mentioned in column (2) of the table below, in the court mentioned in column (3) of the said table, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of such cases in any appellate or revisional courts established by law for the time being in force, from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette till the disposal of the cases or until further orders, whichever is earlier, namely:-

TABLE

[F. No. 225/4/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2026

का.आ. 1833.—के न्द्रीय सरकार,भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता,2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एस वी राजू, अतिरिक्त महा सॅलिसिटर को, दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (कें द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) की ओर से मामला सं0 आरसी2202022ई0007 सीबीआई ईओ-2 नई दिल्ली(सामानतया नौकरी के बदले भूमि घोटाला के नाम से जाना जाता है) से संबंधित डब्ल्यू पी(सीआरएल)1845/2025(लालू प्रसाद यादव विरुद्ध सीबीआई) और तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपीलीय या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में उक्त मामले से उद्भूत होने वाली किसी अपील,पुनरीक्षण और अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए, मामले का निपटान होने तक, या अगले आदेश तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/3/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2026

S.O. 1833.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. V Raju, Additional Solicitor General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025 (Lalu Prasad Yadav vs CBI) before the High Court of Delhi on behalf of Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) arising out from the case number RC2202022E0007, CBI, EO-II New Delhi (popularly known as Land for job scam) and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of them in any appellate or revisional Court established by law for the time being in force, till its disposal or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/3/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1834.—के न्द्रीय सरकार,भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता,2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,श्री सवांग नामग्याल,अधिवक्ता को, सिक्किम राज्य में विशेष न्यायाधीश का न्यायालय, भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, गंगटोक के समक्ष, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (कें द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थापित मामला सं0 आरसी2172025ए0008/सीबीआई/एसी-2 नई दिल्ली के अभियोजन और तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपीलीय या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में उक्त मामले से उद्भूत होने वाली किसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण और अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने,उसके पदग्रहण करने की तारीख से मामले का निपटारा होने तक या अगले आदेश तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/5/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव9550 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2026

S.O. 1834.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Tsewang Namgyal, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of case number RC2172025A0008/CBI/AC-II/New Delhi instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Gangtok in the State of Sikkim and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of the said case in any appellate or revisional Court established by law for the time being in force, from the date of assumption of charge until disposal of the case or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/5/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1835.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री राज मोहन चंद, अधिवक्ता को, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन, (के न्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित,नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ (2) में उल्लिखित मामलों का, उक्त सारणी के तत्स्थानी स्तंभ (4) में उल्लिखित न्यायालयों में अभियोजन का और ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत होने वालीअपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों का तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किन्हीं अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों में संचालन करने हेतु, मामलों का निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है, अर्थात् :-

सारणी

[फा. सं. 225/6/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2026

S.O. 1835.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Raj Mohan Chand, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of the cases mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, in the courts mentioned in the corresponding column (3) of that Table, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of such cases in any appellate or revisional courts established by law for time being in force, till disposal of the cases or until further orders whichever is earlier, namely:-

TABLE

[F. No. 225/6/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1836.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 की के न्द्रीय अधिनियम सं. XXV) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंजाब राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना ज्ञापन सं.: गृह–एचएम-40विविध/25/2024-4एच4/I/1366839/2026, दिनांक 13.04.2026, गृह विभाग (गृह-4 शाखा) के माध्यम से जारी सम्मति से भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 (वर्ष 2018 में यथा संशोधित) की धारा 7 के तहत दंडनीय अपराधों के लिए श्री गुरजीत सिह, एसएसई (ड्राविग्स) इंजीनियरिग विभाग, पटियाला लोकोमोटिव वक्र्स (पीएलडब्ल्यू), पटियाला, पंजाब के विरुद्ध दिनांक 15.04.2026 को दर्ज किए गए आरसी 0052026ए0008 में पंजीकरण एवं अन्वेषण हेतु दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार (कार्योत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 15.04.2026 से) पंजाब राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/47/2022-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2026

S.O. 1836.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act no. XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Punjab, issued vide Notification Memo No.: HOME-HM-40MISC/25/2024- 4H4/I/1366839/2026, Dated 13.04.2026, Department of Home Affairs (Home-4 Branch), hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Punjab (ex post facto w.e.f. 15.04.2026) for registration and investigation in RC0052026A0008 registered on 15.04.2026 against Shri Gurjeet Singh, SSE (Drawings) Engineering Department, Patiala Locomotive Works (PLW), Patiala, Punjab for the offences punishable under section 7 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

[F. No. 228/47/2022-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1837.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री बालकरन सिह, अधिवक्ता को, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन, (के न्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित, नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ (2) में उल्लिखित मामलों (मुख्यतः एनआरएचएम मामलों के रूप में ज्ञात) का, उस सारणी के स्तंभ (5) में उल्लिखित न्यायालय में अभियोजन का और ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत होने वाली किसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों का तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में संचालन करने हेतु, मामलों का निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है, अर्थात् :-

सारणी

[फा. सं. 225/8/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2026

S.O. 1837.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Balkaran Singh, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution of the cases (Popularly known as NRHM Cases) mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, in the court mentioned in column (5) of that Table, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out such cases in any appellate or revisional court established by law for the time being in force, till disposal of the cases or until further orders, whichever is earlier, namely: -9554 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

TABLE

[F. No. 225/8/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1838.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री बालकरन सिह, अधिवक्ता को, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन, (के न्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित, नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ (4) में उल्लिखित मामलोंका, उस सारणी के स्तंभ (4) में उल्लिखित न्यायालय में अभियोजन का और ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत होने वाली किसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों का तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में संचालन करने हेतु, मामलों का निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है, अर्थात् :-

सारणी

[फा. सं. 225/9/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2026

S.O. 1838.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Balkaran Singh, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases mentioned in column (2) of the Table below in the court mentioned in column (4) of that Table below, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out of such cases in any appellate or revisional court established by law for time being in force, till disposal of the cases or until further orders whichever is earlier, namely: -

TABLE

[F. No. 225/9/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1839.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एस.वी.राजू, भारत के एडिशनल सॉलिसिटर जनरल को दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (कें द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) की ओर से मामला सं. आरसी 06(ई)/1999- एसआईयू-आईएक्स से उद्भूत रिट याचिका (दांडिक 675/2001) (विजय अग्रवाल बनाम राज्य और अन्य) का और तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में, किसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या इस मामले से उद्भूत होने वाले अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने हेतु, मामले का निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/12/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2026

S.O. 1839.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S.V Raju, Additional Solicitor General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting W.P.(Crl.) 675/2001 (Vijay Aggarwal Vs State & others) before the High Court of Delhi on behalf of Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) arising out the Case number RC 06(E)/1999-SIU-IX and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out it in any appellate or revisional Court established by law for the time being in force, till its disposal or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/12/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1840.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री प्रताप जी पडिक्कल, अधिवक्ता को, विशेष न्यायाधीश, सीबीआई-I, एर्नाकु लम के न्यायालय के समक्ष दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (कें द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित, मामला संख्या आरसी 08(एस)/2016/सीबीआई/एससीबी/टीवीपीएम(पय्योली मनोज हत्या मामला) के अभियोजन का और विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में इस मामले से उद्भूत होने वाली किसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामले का संचालन करने हेतु, मामले का निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/10/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9557

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2026

S.O. 1840.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Prathap G Padickal, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of case RC 08(S)/2016/CBI/SCB/TVPM (Payyoli Manoj Murder case) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) before the Court of Special Judge, CBI-I, Ernakulam and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out of this case in any appellate or revisional court established by law, till disposal of the case or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/10/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1841.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री पार्थ सारथी दत्ता, अधिवक्ता को, अपर मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट, बारासात जिला 24 परगना(उत्तरी) और अपर जिला न्यायाधीश, बरासात जिला 24 परगना(उत्तरी), पश्चिमी बंगाल राज्य के न्यायालय में, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (कें द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित, मामला संख्या आरसी 02(एस)/2026-के ओएल, के अभियोजन का और तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में उक्त मामले से उद्भूत होने वालीकिसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने हेतु, इसका निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/11/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2026

S.O. 1841.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Partha Sarathi Dutta, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of case number RC 02(S)/2026-Kol instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the courts of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, Dist. -24 Parganas (North) and Additional District Judge, Barasat, Dist. -24 Parganas (North) in the state of West Bengal and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of the said case in any appellate or revisional court established by law for the time being in force, till its disposal or until further order, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/11/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1842.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एस.वी.राजू, भारत के एडिशनल सॉलिसिटर जनरल को दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (कें द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) की ओर से मामला सं. आरसी 06(ई)/1999-एसआईयू-आईएक्स से उद्भूत रिट याचिका (दांडिक 675/2001) (विजय अग्रवाल बनाम राज्य और अन्य) का और तत्समय प्रवृत्त विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में, किसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या इस मामले से उद्भूत होने वाले अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने हेतु, मामले का निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/15/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव9558 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2026

S.O. 1842.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S.V Raju, Additional Solicitor General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting W.P.(Crl.) 675/2001 (Vijay Aggarwal Vs State & others) before the High Court of Delhi on behalf of Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) arising out the Case number RC 06(E)/1999-SIU-IX and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out it in any appellate or revisional Court established by law for the time being in force, till its disposal or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/15/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1843.—कें द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री तुषार मेहता सॉलिसिटर जनरल, को माननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय और भारत के माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के समक्ष, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (कें द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित दांडिक पुनरीक्षण संख्या 134/2026 और आरसी.53(A)/2022/एसीबी/दिल्ली में उद्भूत होने वाले अन्य मामलों के अभियोजन का संचालन करने हेतु, 17 अगस्त, 2026 से मामले का निपटान होने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/15/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्तव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2026

S.O. 1843.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 18 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting Crl. Revision No.134/2026 and other matters arising in RC.53(A)/2022/ACB/Delhi, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of investigation) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, with effect from 17 th August, 2026 till disposal of the case or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/15/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1844.—पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का आधिग्रहण) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50), (इसके बाद उक्त अधिनियम कहा जाएगा) की धारा 2 की उपधारा (क) के अनुसरण में, के न्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन नीचे दी गई तालिका के कॉलम (1) में उल्लिखित व्यक्ति को कॉलम (2) में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र के संबंध में कॉलम (3) में उल्लिखित हिदुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की परिचालित पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइनो के लिए सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यो को करने के लिए अधिकृ त करती है।

इससे पुर्व भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित का. आ. 109, दिनांक 08.02.2021 के तहत कर्नाटक राज्य में हिदुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की मैंगलोर-हसन-मैसूर-सोलूर पाइपलाइन और आ. 878, दिनांक 14.05.2024 के तहत कर्नाटक राज्य में हिदुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की हासन चेरलापल्ली पाइपलाइन के लिए अधिसूचित सक्षम अधिकारियों को डी-नोटिफाइड समझा जाए।

यह अधिसूचना इसके जारी होने की तारीख से प्रभावी होगी।

[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर-I/ई-30930]

हरित कु मार शाक्य, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1844.—In pursuance of sub section (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said act), the Central Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in the respect of areas mentioned in column (2) for its operational petroleum pipeline laid under the said Act mentioned in the column (3) of the said table:

Earlier notified Competent Authority(s) in the Karnataka State for HPCL's Mangalore-Hassan-Mysore-Solur LPG Pipeline vide S.O. No. 109 dated 08.02.2021 and Hassan Cherlapalli LPG Pipeline vide S.O. No. 878 dated 14.05.2024 published in the Gazette of India stands de-notified.

The notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-12030(27)2//2019-OR-I/E-30930]

HARIT KUMAR SHAKYA, Under Secy.

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1845.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग), नियम, 1976 के नियम-10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर विमानन मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के अधीनस्थ निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों, जिनमें 80 प्रतिशत कामिकों ने हिदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।

1. विमानपत्तन निदेशक का कार्यालय, भा.वि.प्रा., सोलापूर हवाईअड्डा, सोलापूर, होटगी रोड, सोलापूर- 413224 2. कार्यालय विमानपत्तन निदेशक, भा.वि.प्रा., रीवा विमानपत्तन, रीवा (मध्य प्रदेश)- 486006

3. विमानपत्तन निदेशक का कार्यालय, भा.वि.प्रा., सतना हवाईअड्डा, सतना, मध्य प्रदेश- 485001

4. विमानपत्तन निदेशक का कार्यालय, दतिया हवाईअड्डा, दतिया- 475661

5. विमानपत्तन निदेशक का कार्यालय, भा.वि.प्रा., तिरुचिरापल्ली अंतरराष्ट्रीय विमानपत्तन, तिरुचिरापल्ली- 620007

[फा. सं. ई. 11014/2/2023-रा.भा.]

मधु सुदन शंकर, संयुक्त सचिव9560 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2026

S.O. 1845.— In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following subordinate offices of Airports Authority of India, under Ministry of Civil Aviation, whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

1. Office of Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Solapur Airport, Solapur, Hotgi Road, Solapur- 413224

2. Office of Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Rewa Airport, Rewa (Madhya Pradesh)- 486006

3. Office of Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Satna Airport, Satna, Madhya Pradesh- 485001

4. Office of Airport Director, Datia Airport, Datia- 475661

5. Office of Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Trichy International Airport, Trichy- 620007

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

MADHU SUDANA SANKAR, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1846.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग), नियम, 1976 के नियम-10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर विमानन मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत नागर विमानन महानिदेशालय के अधीनस्थ उप निदेशक (उड़नयोग्यता) का कार्यालय, अमृतसर, श्री गुरु राम दास जी अंतरराष्ट्रीय हवाईअड्डा, अमृतसर- 143101, जिसके 80% कामिकों ने हिदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।

[फा. सं. ई. 11014/2/2023-रा.भा.]

मधु सुदन शंकर, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2026

S.O. 1846.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the subordinate office of Directorate General of Civil Aviation, O/o Deputy Director (Airworthiness), Amritsar, Sri Guru Ram Das Ji International Airport, Amritsar- 143101 under Ministry of Civil Aviation, whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

MADHU SUDANA SANKAR, Jt. Secy.

इस्पात मंत्रालय

शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1847.—चू ँकि के न्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि किरंदुल से विशाखापत्तनम तक स्लरी के रूप में लौह अयस्क के परिवहन के लिए, आर्सेलरमित्तल निप्पॉन स्टील इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड द्वारा छत्तीसगढ़, ओडिशा और आंध्र प्रदेश राज्यों से होकर गुजरने वाली पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जानी चाहिए।

चू ँकि यह भी आवश्यक है कि आगामी एकीकृ त इस्पात संयंत्र को कच्चे माल की आपूति के लिए, कोय्युरु मंडल के कोथागडाबापालेम ग्राम की सीमा से लेकर, नक्कापल्ली मंडल के डोनीवानीलक्ष्मीपुरम तक मौजूदा कॉरिडोर से अलग हटकर लौह अयस्क स्लरी के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और चू ँकि ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए, आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य के अनकापल्ली जिले के रोलुगु ंटा मंडल स्थित मोखासा कोतापटनम (ग्राम), की भूमि पर उपयोग का अधिकार अजित करना आवश्यक है।

इसलिए, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ संख्या-1 में उल्लिखित सर्वेक्षण संख्याऍं भ भूलवश दिनांक 25.02.2026 के का.आ.संख्या 1097(अ)में अधिसूचित हो गई थीं, जिनका प्रस्तावित मार्ग के अधिकार के संरेखण (अलाइनमेंट) से कोई संबंध नहीं हैं।

और चू ँकि मार्ग के अधिकार के संरेखण (अलाइनमेंट) से संबंधित वास्तविक सर्वेक्षण संख्या और उनके क्षेत्रफल को अधिसूचित करना आवश्यक पाया गया है, और पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोगकर्ता के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम-1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कें द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा उसमें उपयोगकर्ता के अधिकार को अजित करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है।`

और चू ँकि, कें द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिनांक 25.02.2026 को भारत के असाधारण राजपत्र में प्रकाशित इस्पात मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना का.आ.1097 (अ)के लिए निम्नलिखित शुद्धिपत्र जारी करती है।

कोई व्यक्ति जो उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ संख्या-2 में वणित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से इक्कीस दिनों के भीतर, इस्पात मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की दिनांक 29 सितंबर, 2025 की अधिसूचना का.आ.1874, में अधिसूचित सक्षम प्राधिकारी अर्थात् सक्षम प्राधिकारी एवं विशेष उप कलेक्टर (एलए) एपीआईआईसी, इंडस्ट्रियलएस्टेट,विशाखापत्तनम जिनके क्षेत्राधिकार में भूमि आती है, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने पर आपत्ति दर्ज करा सकता है।

इस प्रकार की आपत्ति दर्ज कराने वाले प्रत्येक व्यक्ति को स्पष्ट रूप से यह भी उल्लेख करना होगा कि क्या वह व्यक्तिगत रूप से या किसी कानूनी सलाहकार के माध्यम से सुनवाई करना चाहता है अथवा नहीं।

"अनुसूची"

[फा.सं. एस-28030/4/2024-आरएम (19852)]

अरिदम चौधरी, उप सचिव

MINISTRY OF STEEL

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2026

S.O. 1847.— Whereas it appeared to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of iron ore in the form of slurry from Kirandul to Visakhapatnam, pipelines should be laid, passing through the States of Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh, by the ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited.

Whereas it is further necessary that pipelines should be laid for transport of iron ore slurry, by diverting from existing corridor from the village limits of Kothagadabapalem of Koyyuru Mandal, up to Donivanilakshmipuram of Nakkapalli Mandal, for supply of raw material to the upcoming Integrated Steel Plant.

And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land in Mokhasa Kothapatnam (V), Rolugunta Mandal, Anakapalli District of State of Andhra Pradesh.

Therefore, the Survey Numbers mentioned in the column No-1 of the below Schedule were erroneously notified in S.O.No.1097(E) dated 25.02.2026, which are not related to the alignment of the proposed Right of Way.

And whereas it is found necessary to notify the actual survey numbers and extents that are related to alignment of the Right of Way, and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act-1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.

And whereas, the Central Government hereby makes the following Corrigendum to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel in S.O. 1097(E) dated 25.02.2026, published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India.

Any person interested in the land described in column No-2 of the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of this notification object to the laying of the pipelines under the land to the Competent Authority notified in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel No. S.O.1874 dated the 29th September, 2025 that is to say, Competent Authority & Special Deputy Collector (LA) APIIC, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam having Jurisdiction over the land.

Every person making such an objection shall also state specifically whether he wishes to be heard in person or by legal practitioner.

"SCHEDULE"

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

ARINDAM CHAUDHARY, Dy. Secy.

आवासन और शहरी कार्य मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1848.— के न्द्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा आवासन और शहरी कार्य मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन के न्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों, जिनके 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों और कर्मचारियों ने हिदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम 1976 के नियम-10 के उपनियम (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित करती है:-

1. कार्यालय कार्यपालक अभियंता एवं वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक (वैद्युत), गोवा परियोजना, के न्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, निर्माण भवन, बाम्बोलीम, गोवा-403202

2. कार्यपालक अभियंता (वैद्युत), दिल्ली वैद्युत मंडल-101, के न्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, नॉर्थ ब्लॉक, नई दिल्ली-110001 (राष्ट्रीय राजधानी दिल्ली संघ राज्य क्षेत्र)

3. विशेष महानिदेशक, चंडीगढ़, के न्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, के न्द्रीय सदन, सैक्टर 9-ए चंडीगढ़-160009 (चंडीगढ़ संघ राज्य क्षेत्र)

4. कार्यालय मुख्य अभियंता एवं कार्यकारी निदेशक, दिल्ली परियोजना अंचल-1, के न्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, कमरा नं. सी-414, इंद्रप्रस्थ भवन, नई दिल्ली-110002 (राष्ट्रीय राजधानी दिल्ली संघ राज्य क्षेत्र) 5. कार्यपालक अभियंता एवं वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक (सिविल-1), भारतीय प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान परियोजना मंडल-1, के न्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, नई दिल्ली-110067 (राष्ट्रीय राजधानी दिल्ली संघ राज्य क्षेत्र)

6. कार्यालय कार्यपालक अभियंता, ग्वालियर परियोजना, के न्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, शास्त्री नगर, ग्वालियर-474011 (मध्य प्रदेश)

[सं. ई-11017/5/2013-हिन्दी]

गोपाल प्रसाद, आथिक सलाहकार

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1848.— In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Central Public Works Department, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, where more than 80% of officers/employees have attained working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Office of the Executive Engineer & Senior Manager (Electrical), Goa Project, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Bambolim, Goa-403202

2. Executive Engineer (Electrical), Delhi Electrical Division-101, Central Public Works Department, North Block, New Delhi-110001 (National Capital Territory of Delhi)

3. Special Director General, Chandigarh, Central Public Works Department, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh-160009 (Chandigarh Union Territory)9566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4. Office of the Chief Engineer & Executive Director, Delhi Project Zone-1, Central Public Works Department, Room No. C-414, Indraprastha Bhawan, New Delhi-110002 (National Capital Territory of Delhi)

5. Executive Engineer & Senior Manager (Civil-1), Indian Institute of Technology Project Division-1, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi-110067 (National Capital Territory of Delhi)

6. Office of the Executive Engineer, Gwalior Project, Central Public Works Department, Shastri Nagar, Gwalior-474011 (Madhya Pradesh)

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

GOPAL PRASAD, Economic Advisor

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 1849.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल एविएशन कं पनी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के

ंबई-1, बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, मु के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल-11012/44/2009-आई.आर.(सीएम-I)]

जयदीप यादव, उप निदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2026

S.O. 1849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. and their workmen

[No. L-11012/44/2009-IR(CM-I)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. NTB-1 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

The Chairman & Managing Director,

M/s. National Aviation Company of India Ltd,

Air India Building, Nariman Point,

Mumbai-400 021.

And

The General Secretary,

Aviation Industry Employees Guild,

Old Airport, Santacruz(East)

Mumbai-400 029.

2. The General Secretary,

Air Corporation Employees Union, Mumbai

3. The General Secretary, Indian Aircraft Technicians Association

Mumbai.

Appearances:

For the first party Management : Mr. L.D'souza(Adv.)

For the second party workmen : Absent.

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 10th day of September, 2025.

AWARD

1. The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No.L-11012/44/2009-IR(C-I) dated 13/12/2012 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) Sub-section 1A of Section 10 of the said Act. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:

On 13.12.2012 following dispute has been referred to this Tribunal

"1. Whether the notification dated 29.08.1960 issued by the State of Maharashtra notifying the Air India International Employees Service Regulations and other Service Rules under the provisions of clause(b) Of the proviso to Section 9-A of I.D. Act, 1947 has lapsed on account of the proviso to Section 9-A of I.D. Act, 1947 has lapsed on account repeal of Air Corporations Act, 1953 by Air Corporations (Transfer of undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 and effect of such repeal on the said notification?

2. What is the legal implication/effect of amalgamation of erstwhile Air India Ltd, (Transferor No.1 Company) and erstwhile Indian Airlines Ltd. (Transferor No.2 Company) with M/s. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (Transferee Company) effective from 27.08.2007 on the Notification dated 29.08.1960 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, though the Appropriate Govt. For the establishments of erstwhile Air India Ltd, and erstwhile Indian Airlines Ltd, and now M/s. NACIL under the provisions of I.D. Act is Central Government? 3. Whether the action of the management of M/s. NACIL in not making the regular payment of monthly salary /wages to the workmen on the last working day of the month, as per settled practice and usages is a breach of Section 9-A read with item No. 1,3&8 of the Fourth Schedule of I.D. Act, 1947? To what relief are the workmen entitled and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

From the perusal of the record, it transpired that in spite of repeated opportunity till date the evidence of statement of claim has not been filed by the second party.

For the foregoing reasons, the present case is dismissed for want of prosecution.

DATE:- 10.09.2025 JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1850.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (ं151/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/62/2000-आई.आर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2026

S.O. 1850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.151/2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/62/2000–IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director9568 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 29th day of April, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 151/2002

[Old ID No. 40/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad]

Between:

Sri Yerra Mallesh,

S/o Y. Nagaiah,

H.No.10-3-48, Shivajinagar,

Nizamabad – 503001. … Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD))

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank Street,

Hyderabad-500 095. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/62/2000-IR(B.I) dated 14.7.2000 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad for adjudication and later the same has been transferred to this Tribunal bearing ID No.40/2000, as per orders of Central Government vide Lr.No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C.II) dated 18.10.2001, requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri Yerra Mallesh, Ex.Temporary Messenger, by way of oral orders with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 151/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

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

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

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

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

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

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

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

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

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

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

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1984 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 13 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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

5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel,9570 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

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

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

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

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

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

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9571 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

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

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives".

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not9572 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

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

16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9573 employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon.

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

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

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

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W11. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the notification. Further Ex.W2 is the interview call letter. Ex.W3 is the panel list. Ex.W4 to Ex.W9 are service certificates. Ex.W10 is the lr. to employment exchange. Ex.W11 is the audit report.

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

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11886- 11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

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

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

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

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

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, in terminating the services of Workman Sri Yerra Mallesh, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?

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

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

Findings:-

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

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

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

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

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

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997."

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

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

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

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

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

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

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

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

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

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

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

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

Section 25F provides:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

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

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

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

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

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

erroneously .."

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

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

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

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

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

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

Ltd case, held as under:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VA."

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

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

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

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular process of selection before my

engagement as temporary messenger in the branch.."

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

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

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

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

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

33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9579 temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order.

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

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

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

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

37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

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

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

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

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

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

"I applied for appointment as a Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in terms of the

settlements entered between the bank and the union…. Further, witness states, The panels prepared basing upon the

number of days of service put in by the temporary messengers. Some of the temporary messengers whose names were

included in the panel were given regular employment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel.…. Further

witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service."

Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9581 person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997.

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

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

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

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

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

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

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

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

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

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

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

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

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages.

43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the9582 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44. Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

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

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

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

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

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized."

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

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

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

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

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

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon'ble High Court have held,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9583

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act."

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

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

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state."

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

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

This point is answered against the Workman.

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

This Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri Yerra Mallesh, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri Yerra Mallesh MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification

Ex.W2: Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W3: Photocopy of Panel list

Ex.W4: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W5: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W7: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W8: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W9: Photocopy of Service certificate

Ex.W10: Photocopy of lr. to employment exchange

Ex.W11: Photocopy of audit report

Documents marked for the Respondent

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

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

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

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

Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995 Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.30.7.1996

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

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

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

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

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

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9585

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1851.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (सन्दर्भ संख्या 98/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026-आई.आर (बी-II)-89]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2026

S.O. 1851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (No. LC. 98/2003) 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)-89]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 30th day of June, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 98/2003

Between:

Sri Chodavaram Subramanyam,

S/o Chinnaiah,

R/o Chodavarm, Kotapalum,

Sullurpet,

Nellore Dist-524121.

… Petitioner

And

1. The Chairman,

State Bank of India,

Central office,

Mumbai.

2. The Chief General Manager,

(Personnel)

State Bank of India,

Bank Street

Hyderabad.

3. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Kavali, Nellore distt. …..Respondents9586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. S. Prasada Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Chodavaram Subramanyam 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.

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

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

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

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

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

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

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

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

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

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

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1992 to March, 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 5 years. The Respondent has terminated services of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9587 Workman by oral orders with effect from March, 1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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

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

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

7. Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated 16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon'ble High court of A.P.. It is specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon'ble High court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon'ble High Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant9588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.

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

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

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

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

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

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives".

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 31.3.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks.

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

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

17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9591 settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

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

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

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

Ex.W1 to Ex.W4 are service certificates. Ex.W5 is the absorption letter after interview. Ex.W6 is the caste certificate. Ex.W7 is the marks memo of SSC. Ex.W8 is the transfer certificate.

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

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11886- 11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

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

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

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

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

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Sullurpet branch, in terminating the services of Workman Sri Chodavaram Subramanyam, a Messenger with effect from March, 1997 is justified?

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

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

V.

Findings:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

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

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

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

26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 31.3.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 31.3.1997."

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

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

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

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

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

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

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

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

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

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

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

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

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

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff9594 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

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

27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on March, 1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on March, 1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

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

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

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

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

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

erroneously .."

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

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

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

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

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

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

Ltd case, held as under:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VA."

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

29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., March, 1997.

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

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange and did not undergo the regular process of selection before my

engagement as temporary messenger in the branch.."

"It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank in any branch."

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., March, 1997. Thus, the claim of the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any9596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis.

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

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated March, 1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 31.3.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

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

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

34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from March, 1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

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

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

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

37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5 th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

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

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

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated9598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable.

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

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

"Prior to my oral appointment in 1987 there was no notification."

…"I used to work depending upon availability of work in the branch. ….

I am not aware of the settlements between the federation and the Management. …. Further witness states, "It is true

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

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

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

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

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

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

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

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

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

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

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

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

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

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

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages.

43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44. Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

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

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

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

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

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized."

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act."

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

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

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state."

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

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse.

MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 31.3.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re- examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

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

This Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri Chodavaram Subramanyam, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. March, 1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed.

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 30th day of June, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri Chodavaram Subramanyam MW1: Sri I.S. Appa Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1 to

Ex.W4: Photocopies of service certificates

Ex.W5: Photocopy of absorption letter after interview

Ex.W6: Photocopy of caste certificate

Ex.W7: Photocopy of marks memo of SSC

Ex.W8: Photocopy of transfer certificate9602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Respondent

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

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

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

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

Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995 Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.30.7.1996

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

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

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

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

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

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1852.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (सन्दर्भ संख्या 95/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026-आई.आर(बी-II)-100]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2026

S.O. 1852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( LC.No. 95/2003) 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)-100]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 30th day of June, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 95/2003

Between:

Smt. Napa Danamma,

W/o Krishnaiah,

R/o Nageswara Nagar, Kollamitta,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9603 Sullurpet, Nellore Dist. …. Petitioner

And

1. The Chairman,

State Bank of India,

Central office,

Mumbai.

2. The Chief General Manager,

(Personnel)

State Bank of India,

Bank Street

Hyderabad.

3. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Sullurpet, Nellore Dist.. …..Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. S. Prasada Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Smt. Napa Danamma 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 Sweeper 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.

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

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

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

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

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

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

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

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

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

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

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

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

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

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in her claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Sweeper and worked from 1988 to March, 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of 7 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from March, 1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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

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

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement, settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement, settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement, then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement. In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with that it's a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope that sooner her services will be regularized with the bank. She is thereby closed all her options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated 16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9605 to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon'ble High court of A.P.. It is specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon'ble High court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon'ble High Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.

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

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

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

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

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

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons9606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives".

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after March, 1997 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated March, 1997 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9607 like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

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

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

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

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

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

20. In order to fortify her claim Workman has examined herself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W6. Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of her claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the call letter for interview. Ex.W2 to Ex.W4 are the service certificates. Ex.W5 is the record sheet showing his qualification upto V standard. Ex.W6 is the caste certificate.

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

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non-Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11886- 11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

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

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

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

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

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Workman Smt. Napa Danamma, a Messenger with effect from March, 1997 is justified?

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

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

Findings:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

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

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

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

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

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997."

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has9610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] been issued to this effect that, "Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed." Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

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

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

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

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

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

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

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

at all in view of this Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

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

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."

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

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

27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated her services by oral order on March, 1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined herself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on March, 1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

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

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

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

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

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

erroneously .."

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

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

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

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

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

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

Ltd case, held as under:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VA."

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

29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged 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., 1.4.1997.

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

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange and did not undergo the regular process of selection before my

engagement as temporary non-messenger in the branch.."

"It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank in any branch."

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 1.4.1997. Thus, the claim of the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis.

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

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated March, 1997 rather she was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove her claim that she was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as she failed to establish her plea by any oral or documentary evidence that she had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., March, 1997.

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

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

34. Similarly, the evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that she had worked as a daily wager for which she has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days she had worked in the Respondent bank cannot claim any right to reinstate her into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

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

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

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

37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5 th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

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

"Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of

its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and

appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling

names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly

panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for

the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel

was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek

permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the

fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right,

because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever

conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in

the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first

decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively."

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

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

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

"Prior to my oral appointment in 1989 there was no notification."

…"I used to work depending upon availability of work in the branch. I am not aware of the settlements between the

federation and the Management. …. Further witness states, "It is true that I am not having any documents to show

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

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

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

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon9616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for her absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim her regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days.

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

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

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

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

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

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

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

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

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

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

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove her claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages.

43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of her seniority. It is settled law that the power to create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44. Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel list. Workman witness WW1 in her cross examination has herself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

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

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

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

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

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized."

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act."

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

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

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state."

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

47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non-messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M2 contains, Memorandum of understanding and statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, statement of 1989 non- messenger panel and statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that Petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and her turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states Petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the Petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in her entire temporary service in the bank. The Petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents contained in Ex.M1 printed book and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in her cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover, the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlements and absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re- examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established.

This point is answered against the Workman.

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

This Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Smt. Napa Danamma, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. March, 1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed.

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 30th day of June, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9619

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Smt. Napa Danamma MW1: Sri I.S. Appa Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of call letter for interview

Ex.W2 to

Ex.W4: Photocopies of Service certificates

Ex.W5: Photocopy of is the record sheet showing his qualification upto V standard

Ex.W6: Photocopy of the caste certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

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

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

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

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

Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995 Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.30.7.1996

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

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

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

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

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

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1853.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (पहचान संख्या 4/2023) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल-22013/01/2026-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]

जयदीप यादव, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2026

S.O. 1853.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 4/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of SCCL, and their workmen,

[No. L-22013/01/2026-IR(CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director9620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.4/2023

Between:

Burugu Satish,

S/o B.Laxmi narayana,

R/o: 39/1 Srinagar Colony,

Penagadapa (Rural), Kothagudem,

Telangana, Pin:507103 ………Petitioner

AND

1. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Head Office: Kothagudem-507 101,

Khammam District, Telangana

2. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

J.V.R OC-II Sattupalli,

SCCL Ltd, Khammam.

3. M/s Sushee Hitech Projects Pvt Ltd,

Jubilee Hills Road No.12,

Hyderabad-500 034,

Camp Office: JVR OC-II OB Removal Contractor.

...….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Burugu Satish who worked as Sany Dumper Operator (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 Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for Petitioner's evidence, Petitioner remained absent. Although the Petitioner has filed chief statement of affidavit in evidence but did not turn up for cross examination despite sufficient opportunity.

Therefore, evidence was closed. The claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any evidence. Therefore, a 'No claim' award is passed for want of evidence.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 15th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9621

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1854.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार डी आर डी एल (रक्षा अनुसंधान और प्रयोगशालाएं) मेसर्स आर आदिनारायण ठेके दार के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और टी.एस. कॉन्ट्रैक्ट लेबर यूनियन (श्रीमती अनुसूया और श्रीमती ललिता) के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (आईडी नम्बर- 28/2022) को जैसा कि

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-42011/203/2021-आई.आर(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2026

S.O. 1854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 28/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to DRDL(Defense Research and Laboratories) M/s R. Adinarayana Contractor, and T.S. Contract Labour Union (Smt. Ansuya and Smt. Lalitha).

[No. L-42011/203/2021–IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 28/2022

Between:

The GS, T.S. Contract Labour Union,

(Regd. No. B-1996, Affiliated to BMS) TRT-141,

Jawahar Nagar Street No.9,

Hyderabad – 500020 ......Petitioner

AND

1. The Director,

DRDL (Defense Research and Laboratories),

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad – 5000289622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The Managing Partner,

M/s R. Adinarayana Contractor,

# 18-9-393, Chandrayangutta,

Kesavagiri Post, Bandlaguda,

Hyderabad - 500005 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 42011/203/2021 (IR(DU)) dated 31.01.2022 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of The Director, DRDL (Defense Research and Laboratories), Hyderabad, M/s R. Adinarayana Contractor, Hyderabad, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claim of T.S. Contract Labour Union vide letter dated 16.10.2019 that the action of management of contractor M/s R Adinarayana in terminating the services of the contract workers namely Smt. Ansuya and Smt. Lalitha, despite having the documents proving that they have not attained the age of 58 years, is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief these contract workers are entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 28/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioners remained absent. Despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity Petitioner union didn't file any claim statement. Petitioner opportunity closed. Petitioner Union has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, in absence of claim statement 'no claim' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1855.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एसईसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (एलसी/आर-26/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल-22012/90/2014-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]

जयदीप यादव, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9623

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/R/26/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L and their workmen,

[No. L-22012/90/2014-IR(CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

JABALPUR (M.P.)

NO. CGIT/LC/ R/26/2015

Present: P.K.SrivastavaH.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Ramdas, Driller,

Piparia, Vartola,

PO Piparia,

Annuppur, M.P.- 484224

Workman

V/s

The Dy. Regional Manager,

Nowrozabad Colliery,

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,

PO Nowrozabad,

Umaria M.P.- 484555

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 22nd day of July, 2026)

As per letter dated 27.02.2015 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-22012/90/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 27.02.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:-

"क्या उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक नोरोजाबाद कॉलरी, एसईसीएल पोस्ट नोरोजाबाद जिला उमरिया द्वारा अवेदक श्री रामदास

आ. रामगरीब, पूर्व ड्रिलर, नोरोजाबाद कालरी को दिये गये आरोप पत्र दिनांक 10.05.2008 तथा की गई विभागीय जांच के आधार

पर अपने आदेश क्रमांक 1327 दिनांक 27.10.2008 द्वारा कामगार को सेवा से बरखास्त किया जाना न्यायसंगत है? यदि नहीं तो

कर्मकार क्या अनुतोष पाने का हकदार है?"

The case of the workman is mainly that he was appointed and joined in the Office of Management in May, 1989 as a Loader and worked till 27.10.2008. He was dismissed by management vide order dated 27.10.2008/30.10.2008 on the basis of a departmental enquiry conducted against him, which was unjust, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. One Dilip Patel S/o Baijnath Patel filed a complaint to the Collector, stating that the applicant workman, who is working with the management of SECL is Munna S/o Langru Patel. In fact, real Ram Das S/o Ramgarib Patel R/o Village Kansa, Post Pipariya, District Annuppur is working with Cooperative Society, Dulhara, Annuppur as a sales man. Thus, the applicant, who is in fact Munna S/o Langru Patel, has impersonated himself as Ramdas and working with the Management also. A departmental enquiry was conducted against him in his absence which was, as stated earlier, unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The charges were wrongly held proved against him and the punishment was also arbitrary. He raised a dispute in this respect which could not be conciliated. A reference was made to this Tribunal by an appropriate Government. The workman has prayed that set aside his dismissal, he be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.

Case of Management is mainly that the applicant was working as a Driller and was posted at Nowrozabad Colliery. The Collector Annuppur, sent a report to management informing that the person working in name of9624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ramdas Patel is not the real Ramdas Patel. The real Ramdas Patel is working in Cooperative Society named ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI and the person working with the Management Colliery is in fact Munna Lal S/o Langru Patel, who is relative of Ramdas S/o Ramgarib. Management issued a charge sheet against the workman with allegation of misconduct under clause 26.1 and 26.9 of the Standing Order. The matter was reported to Station In- Charge, Nowrozabad Police Station. The workman submitted his reply on 23.05.2008 which was found not satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was ordered. The workman was served notice of the enquiry but he did not appear in the enquiry. The management produced documents during the enquiry. On the basis of documents produced by Management, the Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of the misconduct under clause 26.1 and 26.9 of the Certified Standing Orders, for obtaining employment on the basis of furnishing wrong information with respect to name and identity, as well committing fraud and dishonestly with the management. The workman was issued a show cause notice, after finding his reply on the show cause notice not satisfactory, the punishment order was passed, by which his services were terminated. According to management, the enquiry was just, legal and proper. The charges were rightly held proved and the punishment is also proportionate to the charges.

In his rejoinder, the workman has mainly reiterated his case.

On the basis of pleadings, following Preliminary Issue was framed vide order dated 16.08.2019, as follows:-

Whether, the Departmental Enquiry conducted is legal and proper?

On the basis of evidence on record and enquiry documents, the preliminary issue was decided vide order dated 18.06.2025, the departmental enquiry was found legal and proper.

Following additional issues were framed, on the basis of perusal of record, in the light of rival arguments.

(1) Whether, the finding of the Enquiry Officer with respect to proof of misconduct has been recorded

perversely?

(2) Whether, the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct proved?

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence, if any, on the additional issues. They have not filed any evidence.

I have heard argument of Mr. Arun Patel, Learned counsel for applicant workman and Mr. Neeraj Kewat, Learned counsel for Management. I have gone through the record as well.

Additional Issue No. 1

The settled proposition of law with respect to proof of charges in a departmental enquiry is that, the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as it is required in criminal trials. Following judgments are being referred to in this respect:-

"Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and

independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd.

vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255

Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature:

Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the

charge(emphasis supplied). Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like

a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs

a quasi judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a

preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot

take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the

burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and

conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10, 11, 12 & 13).

(ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)

In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State

Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7

SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony

Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417

(vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30,

it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution

are two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency

of public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a

departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his

misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard

of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings

and the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."

In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite

distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.

In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad

High Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC

425, the distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under:

"The two proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case. "

Now, considering the material collected during the enquiry, it comes out that the workman did not participate in the enquiry. As enquiry records reveals, on 15.07.2008, the charges were read over, though the workman was not present. The management representative was asked to produce the documents; he produced as many as 11 documents as mentioned in the proceedings. They are; photocopy electoral list of Annuppur Vidhan Sabha Nirvachan Kshetra, in which the name of Munnalal S/o Langru as mentioned at S. No. 629, photocopy service book of Ramdas Patel maintained by the Management, photocopy appointment letter issued by the cooperative committee regarding appointment of Ramdas Patel and his application. Appointment order Chairman of Cooperative Committee. Information sent to Officer In-Charge of the Police Station, charge sheet issued to the workman, letter dated 24.05.2008 sent to Officer In-Charge for action by the Management, letter of Collector dated 20.03.2008, letter of complaint sent by the complainant Dilip Kumar Patel to the Collector, photocopy of the land Patta issued to Ramgarib S/o Dhaniram and land record Patta issued in favour of Munnalal S/o Langru Patel. The Enquiry Officer, as it is mentioned in the enquiry report, held charges proved on the basis of these documents only. It is worth mentioning that no witness was examined by the Management during the enquiry proceedings. Learned counsel for workman has submitted that simply production of documents without examining the person who prepared the documents or who collected the documents will not be sufficient to held the charges, he has referred to following judgments in this respect:- .

In the case of Roop Singh Negi V.s. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570, Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be

proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:

"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs

a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved.

The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on

record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all

the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to

prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the

contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been

treated as evidence.

15. Same view was reiterated in State of UP Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772, wherein, Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the

evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold

that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows: -

"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent

adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His

function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to

see as to whether they are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral

evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could the charges have been proved against

the respondents, not have been taken into consideration to conclude that unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold

that the charges are proved."

In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29758/2018 Stayendra Singh V.s. State of UP (2024 INSC

873), the aforesaid judgments have been relied upon.

Learned counsel for management has submitted that these documents have not been disputed by the workman but, I am not convinced with this argument because in his reply to the show cause, the workman stated that he could not appear due to illness but he has produced documents in his reply.

Crux of the matter is that, only photocopy documents were produced before the Enquiry Officer without examining any witness in this respect, these photocopy documents have been filed before this Tribunal also. The photocopies of these documents was so blurred that identity of the person cannot be deciphered in any of the documents mainly the voter list, society documents and management documents. In absence of original documents and examination of any witnesses who prepared these documents or who collected these documents, it cannot be said that the charges are proved against the workman according to law. Hence, holding the finding of the Enquiry Officer with respect to charges are perverse, the charges are held not proved against the workman.

Additional Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2

In light of finding that charges are not proved against the workman, with regards to relief following judgment is being reproduced:-

Before proceeding, Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase, (2013)10SCC 324 requires to be reproduced hereunder:-

"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

(i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back

wages is the normal rule.

(ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the

adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the

employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the

financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.

(iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of

getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or

the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the

employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to

prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she

was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of

the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is

always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he

was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was

gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.

(iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman

is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the

punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award

full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not

at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample

justification for award of full back wages.

(v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross

violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the

employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full

back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the

Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a

possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or

the employer's obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of

wrongful/ illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman

and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the

burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.

(vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary

adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in

majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the

principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would

amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long

lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The

Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis

the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the

sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with

certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in

Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).

(vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the

employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of

three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is

also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman."

Consequentially, termination of the workman is set aside, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service from the date of his termination till date of his superannuation or till date of Award whichever is earlier with all consequential benefits and back-wages.

Issue No. 2 stands answered accordingly.

Hence, on the basis of above discussions and findings, the reference deserves to be answered accordingly;

AWARD

"Holding the action of the SAM, Nowrozabad Colliery in issuing charge sheet dated 10.05.2008 and after

conducting the enquiry, terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 27.10.2008 vide order No. 1327, illegal and

unjustified, the workman is entitled to be reinstated with all back-wages and benefits, the Reference stands

answered accordingly."

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 22-07-2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1856.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एसईसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (एलसी/आर-51/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल-22012/28/2016-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]

जयदीप यादव, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/R/51/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L and their workmen,

[No. L-22012/28/2016-IR(CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR (M.P.)

NO. CGIT/LC/ R/51/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)

The General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation,

Federation Office, Chirmiri,

Distt. Korea (CG)- 497449,

Korea (Chattisgarh)

Workman

V/s

The General Manager,

Chirimirei Area of SECL,

PO West Chirimiri,

Distt. Korea (CG)- 497448,

Korea (Chattisgarh)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 30th day of June, 2026)

As per letter dated 03/06/2016 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-22012/28/2016 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 03/06/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:-

"Whether the action on the part of the General Manager, SECL Chirmiri Area in not entering the correct

date of birth in respect of Sh. Barelal, Assistant Foreman of Kurasia Colliery in Form 'B' Register as recorded in

School Transfer Certificate is appropriate and justified? If not, what relief Shri Barelal S/o Khubbu, Asstt.

Foreman at present working in Kurasia Colliery espoused by the General Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Workers

Federation, is entitled to?"

The undisputed facts relevant to this dispute are mainly that Barelal was appointed by South Eastern Coalfieldas Limited in Chirmiri Area as a General Mazdoor. He was issued a letter for his interview by the Personnel Manager on 14.09.1983 and was interviewed by the Management before his appointment. He was found eligible for appointment and was offered appointment. He was medically examined before his joining by the doctor appointed by the Management, who recorded his age at the time of his medical examination at 26 years. On the basis of his age, which was recorded 26 years in his medical examination, his date of birth was recorded as 26.09.1957 because his medical examination was conducted on 25.09.1983 and his age 26 years was recorded by the doctor in his medical examination. It is on the basis of this entry in his service register, the other documents namely; PF documents, PS-3 and PS-4, Form-B and service extracts.

It is the case of the workman that he was registered with the Employment Exchange, his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for employment. He had produced his School Leaving Certificate with the Employment Exchange at the time of his registration, in which his date of birth is 02.01.1960 was recorded. He had produced his School Leaving Certificate at the time of his joining which was not considered by the Management. He came to know about this discrepancy with respect to his date of birth and filed a representation against this entry requesting the Management to correct his date of birth on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate which was not done by the Management. He preferred a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 12412/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. which was decided with an observation that the case before this Tribunal in this respect be decided expeditiously. It was further observed that the dispute was pending before this Tribunal during the pendency of the said writ.

Case of the Management is that no educational qualification was required for the post of General Mazdoor. The workman presented himself as an illiterate person and told his age 26 years to the doctor at the time of his medical examination. His date of birth was recorded in his service record on the basis of his age recorded by the doctor at the time of his medical examination, workman never objected to this at any time, he raised a dispute in this respect at the fag end of his service hence the dispute is barred by unexpected delay and latches on his part. Management has further pleaded that in the year 1987, service extracts of workman were issued, objections were invited by way of general notice but the workman did not objected regarding his alleged wrong entry with respect to his date of birth at that time. Hence, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to challenge it and is now stopped from raising the dispute . Also, it is the case of the Management that, the so called School Leaving Certificate is not genuine.

Both the sides have filed almost same documents which are; interview letter of the workman, medical certificate by doctor, service register of the workman. The workman has filed and proved his School Leaving Certificate and his application dated 17.04.1992 addressed to the General Manager, Chirmiri Area seeking correction[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9629 of his date of birth. Management has additionally, filed copy of service extracts said to be issued by Management inviting objections with regards to entries, copy of PS-3 and PS-4.

Workman side has filed affidavit of workman as his Examination-in-chief, he has been cross-examined by the Management.

Management side has filed affidavit of its witnesses as his Examination-in-chief, workman did not avail the opportunity to cross-examine all these witnesses.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the workman, Mr. L. M. Tripathi and Mr. Neeraj Kewat, Learned Counsel for the Management. I have gone through the record as well.

On perusal of record, in the light of rival arguments, the reference itself is the issue for determination.

Learned counsel for the workman has submitted that he was registered with the Employment Exchange and sponsored by Employment Exchange for employment. His date of birth, 02.01.1960 was recorded in the Employment Exchange on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate produced by him before the Employment Exchange at the time of his registration, which was sent to the management with response to the vacancy circular and he was issued a interview letter. He did produce his School Leaving Certificate with respect to his age at the time of his joining and this fact is corroborated by the workman in his Statement of Oath, is not challenged by the management. Moreover, learned counsel submits that, he filed a representation before the Management within 10 years of his service when he came to know about the discrepancy, which was duly received by Management but no action was taken in this respect.

Learned counsel also submits that, there is nothing on record to prove that, any copy of service extracts was served on the workman in 1987 and invitation were invited, as is the case of Management. Learned counsel has also submitted that when the Management was in receipt of an Application for correction of date of birth, filed by the workman in 1992, it was duty bound to address this application and decided the controversy in light of clause 5 of Implementation Instructions No. 76. By not doing so, the Management has acted against law and this action of Management is unjust and arbitrary.

Learned counsel for the management has submitted that the dispute has been raised by the workman at fag end of his service. He was given an opportunity in 1987 to get his date of birth corrected, which he did not avail hence he cannot be permitted to agitate again. Learned counsel has referred to Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the case of Surendra Singh v/s State of M.P. 2007 (1) MPLJ 286, in this case the employee entered in service on 01.01.1972. He filed application seeking correction of his date of birth on 25.04.2004 i.e., after 32 years. The claim to alteration of his date of birth made at the fag end of his service was held to have been rightly rejected. In another case, The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of, State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan 1994 (6) SCC 302, held the rules provided that any correction in the recorded date of birth could be entertained only within five years after entering into service, application made after laps of this period, the application was held to have been rightly rejected.

Learned counsel for workman has relied on Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, in the case of, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And Ors v/s Sampat Kumar Chouhan, 2015 (1) CGLJ 54, in this case the date of birth of the workman as recorded in his matriculation certificate was not recorded in his service record, Hon'ble High Court directed that the date of birth be corrected in light of matriculation certificate.

Management has not denied specifically that no application in the year 1992, as alleged by the workman was served by him with Management. The workman has filed and proved the copy of this Application as Ex-W/5, which discloses that, it was served on Management on 17.04.1992. It was prayed that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his service record and requested that it be corrected as 02.01.2960. It should be considered in light of the fact that, it is the case of Management that the date of birth of workman was recorded in light of age mentioned in the medical certificate (Ex-W/2).

Learned counsel has submitted that this age was recorded by Medical Officer on the disclosure of the workman. Workman has specifically denied that he made any disclosure to the doctor with respect to his age. Entry with respect to date of birth in other documents namely; Form-B and service extracts are consequential to with his first service document which is service register entry in this respect. Since, the workman made a representation with nine years of his service, seeking correction with respect to his date of birth, it cannot be said that he made this prayer at the fag end of his service hence, the judgment in the case of Surendra Singh (supra) can be distinguished from the case in hand on facts. Furthermore, since Management could not show any prescribed time limit for correction of date of birth, hence the second judgment in the case of T.V. Venugopalan (supra) referred by Management in this respect will also not be applicable in the present case.

That the IMPLEMENTATION INSTRUCTION NO. 76, requires to be reproduced, and is being reproduced as follows:-

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION/

VERIFICATION OF AGE OF EMPLOYEES

(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment;

(i) Matriculates

In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of

birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not

be altered under any circumstances.

(ii) Non-matriculates but educated.

In the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date

of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the

same will not be altered under any circumstances.

(ⅲ) Ex-servicemen.

In the case of Ex-servicemen who are not matriculates, the date of birth recorded in the Army

Discharge Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered

under any circumstances. In the case of Ex-servicemen who have passed Matriculation

examination, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate will be treated as correct

date of birth, provided they have passed the Matriculation examination before entering the Defence

Services; otherwise the date of birth recorded in Army Discharge Certificate will be taken as

correct date of birth.

(iv) In the cases of appointees not covered under the foregoing causes, the date of birth will be

determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant

evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date

of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.

(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.

(i) (a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate

issued by the recognized Universities or Board Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of

Education and / or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid

Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/

Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.

(i) (b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the

Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic.

Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) above are available, the date

of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic.

(ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very

glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. Management after

being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through

Determination Committee/Medical Board.

(C) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will In the case of be constituted by the

Management. employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the

procedure mentioned in (B) (i) (a) or (B) (i) (b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of

the company, namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and Identity Cards (untampered) will be

treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records

mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board

constituted by the Management for determination of age.

(D) For determination of the age, the Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider the

evidences, available with the Colliery Management and/or adduced before the employee concerned.

(E) Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to assess the age in accordance

with the requirement of "Medical Jurisprudence" and the Medical Board will as far as possible

indicate the accurate age, assessed and not approximately.

(F) Where the Management (i.e.,) Area Age Assessment Committee consisting of General Manager,

Personnel Manager and Medical Officer-in-charge of the Area is satisfied that there is a glaring

disparity between the date of birth recorded in the identity cards and the apparent age of the

employee, the cases may be referred to the Apex Medical Board located at Headquarters of the

company for determination of age.

(H) After the assessment of the age by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board the same will

be computerized and print out of the same will be given to be employee concerned and the unit from

the reference was received within a month. If age is not however, computerized, still the same will

be intimated to the employee concerned and the Unit within a month.

(I) It was agreed that in cases where instead of date of birth, year has been recorded, 1st July of the

year will be deemed to be the date of birth.

It was incumbent of Management to decide his representation filed on 1992 adopting the procedure as reproduced above, with respect to age dispute of illiterate persons, Management did not do so hence the Management is held to have acted arbitrarily in not disposing the representation of 1992 filed by the workman before it and insisting on date of birth recorded in his service records.

As regards to relief admissible, the workman has been superannuated by Management, on the date of birth recorded in his service records and this action has been held against law.

Before proceeding, Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase, (2013) 10 SCC 324 require to be reproduced hereunder:-

"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

(i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back

wages is the normal rule.

(ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the

adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the

employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the

financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.

(iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of

getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or

the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the

employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to

prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she

was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of

the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is

always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he

was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was

gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.

(iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman

is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the

punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award

full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not

at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample

justification for award of full back wages.

(v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross

violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the

employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full

back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the

Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a

possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or

the employer's obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of

wrongful/ illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman

and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the

burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.

(vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary

adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in

majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the

principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would

amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long

lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The

Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis

the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the

sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with

certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in

Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).

(vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the

employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of

three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is

also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman."

Hence, in light of the aforesaid proposition of law, the workman is held entitled to be deemed in service

from the date of his appointment till the date of his superannuation, on the basis of his date of birth i.e., 02.01.1960

and is also held liable to all consequential in service and post retiral benefits including back-wages, payable to him

within 90 days from the date of Award, failing which interest @6% p.a., from the date of Award till payment.

AWARD

"Holding the action of the General Manager, S.E.C.L., Chirmiri Area in not entering the correct date of

birth in respect of Sh. Barelal, in Form 'B' Register as recorded in School Transfer Certificate, illegal, arbitrary

and unjustified. He is entitled to all consequential in service and post retiral benefits including back-wages,

payable to him within 90 days from the date of Award, failing which interest @6% p.a., from the date of Award till

payment, the Reference stands answered accordingly."

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 30-06-2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1857.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एसईसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (एलसी/आर-83/2023) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल-22013/01/2026-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]

जयदीप यादव, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1857.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/R/83/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L and their workmen,

[No. L-22013/01/2026-IR(CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR

CGIT/LC/R/83/2023

Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)

Suresh Kumar,

S/o Late Shattrughan,

R/o Village Chhinpur,

PO Bhilai Bazar, Kusmunda, Korba (CG)

Workman

Versues

Sub Area Manager,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL)

Dhelvadih – Singhali – Bagdeva Sub Area,

Korba (CG) –

Management

AWARD

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

As per letter dated 30.11.2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act')as per Notification No. RP-02(1-04)/2023-ES.lll dt 30.11.2023. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action on the part of the Management of south Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) DSB

Sub-Area, Korba Area, Distt. Korba (CG) in dismissing the services of workman Shri Suresh Kumar S/o Late

Shatrughan, General Mazdoor Category-I is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The undisputed facts are that the Workman Suresh Kumar son of Late Shri Shatrughan is the husband of Rajkumari, daughter of Mansa Ram. Mansaram was tenure holder of land Kasra No. 481/9 with an area of 1.5 acres situated in village Kusmunda Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. Rajkumari, who is the wife of the Workman Suresh Kumar, got this land as heir and successor of her father Mansaram after his death. This land was acquired by the Management of SECL. According to an agreement between the Management of SECL and land holders, the Management was in obligation to offer appointment to one of the dependant family member of the land oustee, nominated by him. Name of the workman Suresh Kumar was nominated by the land oustee Rajkumari who was his wife as her dependant family member. The Workman was offered appointment on the post of General Mazdoor in the year 2005 under National Coal Wage Agreement – 7 (NCWA-7). Before his appointment, he furnished all the documents i.e. the records of land claimed by the Management, nomination form regarding the sponsorship and other related documents.

On 18.08.2008, the Additional Collector Korba sent a letter to the Management of SECL that it came to their knowledge that some heir certificates, which are said to be issued under the signature of the Collector, are in fact not issued by him, these certificates do not contain signatures of the Collector. He asked the Management to send all the heir certificates to his Office for verification. The Management vide its letter dated 15/16-09-2008, provided the list of 22 employees who had submitted their certificates to the Office of Additional Collector Korba. On 14.10.2009, the Additional Collector Korba informed the Management that out of 22 employees, the heir certificates of 17 employees, in which the applicant workman Suresh Kumar was also included, were fake as they were not issued by the Office.

It is the case of the Workman that, the Management got conducted an enquiry from the Sub-divisional Officer, Khatghora, who sent his reports dated 07.11.2009, and stated that on enquiry it was found that the Applicant workman is the husband of land oustee Rajkumari, who is the daughter and sole heir and successor of the original land holder i.e. her father Mansaram vide his letter dated 07.11.2009. The Management had sent another communication to Police, to enquire into the matter. It was informed to Management by the Police Department vide their letter dated 17.06.2010 that heir certificates were not found to be fake, they were prepared by SDM Khatghora and are genuine. In the meanwhile, the Management terminated the workman vide its order dated 03.05.2010, without conducting any Departmental enquiry and without giving workman any opportunity of hearing on the ground of production of non-genuine heir certificates by him to secure his employment. When he came to know about his termination, he made a representation and filed the case before the Additional Collector Korba, under Section 51 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code for review and recall of his letter dated 14.10.2009, in which heir certificate of the applicant Workman was said to be fake along with other persons. The Additional Collector passed an order dated 08.09.2010, in which he held that since the letter was an Administrative Letter dated 14.10.2009, it could not be reviewed under the Code but he also observed that from the record available, heir certificate showing that the land oustee Rajkumari is daughter and her father i.e original land holder Mansaram has been issued to them and when this fact has been certified by the Administration, the Management of SECL should act accordingly. It is the case of the Workman that this action of Management in dismissing his services without any enquiry or opportunity of hearing is unjust, illegal and arbitrary because the very basis of termination is not established, he has prayed that setting aside his termination, he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.

Management has taken a case that, since in the light of letter of the Additional Collector dated 14.10.2009, it was mentioned that the heir certificate with respect to the workman was not genuine, and there was a Clause in his appointment letter, which specifically stated that "if any fact or information regarding securing of appointment is found incorrect, the services of the workman shall be terminated without any notice." Hence, according to Management, there was no occasion or justification to issue a show cause notice to the Workman or conduct regular Departmental Enquiry before his termination.

The workman has further taken a case that he filed a Writ Petition against the termination of his services, which was W.P. No. 2672/2011 before Hon'ble High Court of Bilaspur (CG), which was disposed vide order dated 05.01.2016. The Management was directed to decide the representation of the workman filed by him against his dismissal on the basis of facts and documents produced by him, which was decided by Management vide its order dated 20.04.2016 and the representation was rejected on the ground that no heir certificate with respect to family tree or not other fact or affidavit has been filed by the workman with the representation. The earlier filed heir certificate was found not genuine which the Additional Collector, Korba in his order has specifically mentioned that since the communication dated 14.10.2009 was not recalled.

The case of Workman is also that this action of Management is also unjust, illegal and arbitrary and is perverse in the light of the communication and certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer and report of the Police Officers as well observations made by the Additional Collector in his order dated 08.09.2010.

The Management has taken a case with respect to these allegations of workman that their action is just, legal and proved because situation did not change.

In evidence, both parties have filed affidavit and documents which are inform of letters referred to above, not disputed by any of the parties.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Akshay Pawar and Mr. Alabhya Vajpai for Management.

Workman side has filed written submission also, which are part of record. I have gone through the written submission as well the record.

On perusal of record in the light of submission, the reference itself is the issue for determination.

Learned Counsel for the Workman has submitted that the Workman was awarded maximum punishment of dismissal without even issuing a notice to him to have his say on his proposed punishment. Learned Counsel for the Workman has submitted that this fact remains undisputed right from the beginning till now that Mansaram had only one daughter Rajkumar, who is the wife of the Workman and this Rajkumari succeeded the land of Mansaram as his heir and successor which was enqujird by Management of SECL. Hence, it cannot be stated that any fact was wrongly mentioned by the Workman for seeking employment as dependant family member of land oustee. Regarding the charge of production of allegedly fake heir certificates, which loses significance, as submitted by Learned Counsel for Workman in the light of the communication made by Sub Divisional Magistrate who certified that this fact of heir and also the communication of Police Department that the certificates were not found fake after enquiry, this fact was not considered by the Management at the time of deciding his representation filed by him in the light of order of Hon'ble High Court, thus Management has acted unjustly and against law.

Argument from the side of Management is that there was specific Clause in the offer of appointment if any information or fact or document produced by the Workman is found fake or not genuine, his services may be terminated by Management without notice. Hence, there was no notice required nor was any requirement of Departmental Enquiry before termination of services of the workman because the facts still remain unchanged that the heir certificate was not genuine as it was mentioned in the letter of Additional Collector dated 14.10.2009.

Learned Counsel for Management has further submitted that, in Clause 26.9 of Certified Standing Orders furnishing false information or document for seeking appointment is a serious misconduct in which dismissal may be the punishment. Hence, on this score also, the action of Management is not against law. As regards rejection of representation by Management which was filed by the Workman under order of Hon'ble High Court, the Management has submitted that the situation still remain the sme that the heir certificate was not genuine.

From perusal of records it comes out that the Rajkumari was the sole heir and successor of original tenure holder Mansaram, being his daughter, is not disputed, rather it is fermented by the Sub Divisional Officer and even by the Additional Collector in his order dated 08.09.2010. He observes that the letter is not a judicial order, hence it[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9635 cannot be recalled, but he also observes that when it is established that the Workman is dependant family member of the land oustee, the Management was required to consider this fact.

Punishment of dismissal from services is the maximum punishment. No doubt, in the offer of appointment, there was a provision in the offer that services of the workman could be terminated even without notice if any information furnished by him at the time of his appointment for seeking appointment is found incorrect. Had the Management given the workman an opportunity to have his say, he could have successfully put his defense and established the fact that he is the dependant family member of the land oustee, who happens to be his wife and has got land as heir and successor of her father Mansaram, who was original tenure holder. After termination of his services, the workman raised his allegation before Revenue and Police Authorities, and this fact of heirship as well the dependant family member was certified by the Revenue and Police Authorities. The Management was bound under law to consider all these facts at the time of deciding the representation of the workman dated 25.01.2016, filed by him before the Management in the light of order of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in WP No. 2672/2011 dated 05.01.2016. In not considering these facts and rejecting the representation filed by the Workman against his termination, the Management is held to have acquired illegality and this action of Management is held unjust, illegal and arbitrary.

Now the question arises with respect to relief, Learned Counsel for Workman has referred to Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Deepali Gundu Surwase V.s. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 342. The relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced as follows –

"The propositions which can be called out from the aforementioned judgments are:

(i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is

the normal rule.

(ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating

authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of

misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and

similar other factors.

(iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting

back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court

of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to

avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the

employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to

the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a

particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a

positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus

lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the

same or substantially similar emoluments.

(iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is

consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment

was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages.

However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any

misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full

back wages.

(v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross

violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee

or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages.

In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and

interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a

different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation

to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/ illegal termination of

service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give

premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his

dues in the form of full back wages.

(vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory

authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the

parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in

the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an

employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the

termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in

most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail

the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill

afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be

prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin

Works Private Limited (supra).

(vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the

employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three

Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also

against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman."

In the light of principles laid down in the said judgment, the Workman is held entitled to be reinstated

with full back wages and consequential benefits deeming him to be in continuous service of the Management from

the date of termination. Management is directed to calculate his dues and pay him within 90 days from the date of

Judgment, failing which interest @6% from the date of Judgment till payment.

AWARD

Holding the action on the part of the Management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) DSB Sub-

Area, Korba Area, Distt. Korba (CG) in dismissing the services of workman Shri Suresh Kumar is illegal and

arbitrary, the Workman is held entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and consequential benefits deeming

him to be in continuous service of the Management from the date of termination. Management is directed to

calculate his dues and pay him within 90 days from the date of Judgment, failing which interest @6% from the

date of Judgment till payment

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 24-07-2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1858.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एसईसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (एलसी/आर-55/2025) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल-22013/01/2026-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]

जयदीप यादव, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/R/55/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L and their workmen,

[No. L-22013/01/2026-IR(CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9637

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/2025

Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

D.P. Sharaf

Joint General Secretary RCMC

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (RCMC)

SECL Colony, District – Korba,

Chhattisgarh - 495677

Workman

Versus

General Manager

South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL)

Kusmunda Project, Post – Kusmunda

District – Korba (CG) 495454

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 23rd day of July - 2026.)

As per letter dated 17/10/2025 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number RP-2(1-2)/2025-ES-III(ID) dt. 17/10/2025. The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the action on the part of the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL),

General Manager, Kusmunda Project, Dist. Korba (CG) in denying the payment of financial benefit as

per Implementation Instruction No. 32 of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-VI dated 22-01-2002

to the workman Shri Bharat Lal Baghel, Ex-workman, SECL, Kusmunda Project is legal and justified ?

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

After registering a case, on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. Workman Union side never appeared. Learned Counsel Mr. Rohit Shrivastava filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of management.

None of the parties filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statement of Defense.

Since, the initial burden to prove its case is on the workman union side, in which it has failed to discharge.

Hence, holding the claim of the workman union not proved, the reference stands answered against it.

DATE:- 23-07-2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1859.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स आंध्र सीमेंट्स लिमिटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, विशाखा सीमेंट वक्र्स; मेसर्स एज़टेक सविसेज़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री रापर्थी अप्पलालनायडू के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 30/2018) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/06/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1859.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 30/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri Raparthi Applalanaidu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/06/2017-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 30/2018

Between:

Shri Raparthi Applalanaidu, S/o Pandalu,

Porlupalem (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047. ....Petitioner

AND

1. The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2. M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/6/2017-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company in not considering Shri Raparthi Kanaka Rao, S/o Gangayya, workman in service in contravention of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the post services rendered to Andhra Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 30/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1860.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री एम. श्रीमनायडू के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 134/2014) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/67/2014-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 134/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri. M. Srimnaidu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-17012/67/2014-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.134/2014

Between:

Sri. M. Srimnaidu,

S/o. Late Appa Rao,9640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Yegireddipeta (V),

Vommi (Post), Rajam (M),

Srikakulam. Srikakulam Dist. ….Petitioner

AND

The Manager (E&OS),

Life Insurance Corporation Of India,

Divisional Office, PB No.411,

Jeevan Bima Road,

Jeevan Prakash, Visakhapatnam,

Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530004 ….. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri N. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: Smt. Tehara, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/67/2014 (IR(M)) dated 08.08.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Life Insurance Corporation Of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri M. Sriramnaidu, Ex-Substaff w.e.f. 24.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 134/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for Petitioner evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite sufficient opportunity, since January, 2020, Petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence. It appears that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence, a 'No Claim Award' is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 15th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9641

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1861.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री के . शिवा कृ ष्णा के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 167/2014) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं. एल-17012/54/2014-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 167/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri. K. Siva Krishna which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-17012/54/2014–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 167/2014

Between:

Sri K. Siva Krishna,

S/o K. Prasad babu,

D. No. 3-12-5, Nehru Road,

Rajakapeta,

Tenali, Guntur Dist.,

GUNTUR - …...Petitioner

AND

1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam,

MACHILIPATNAM – 521001

2. The Branch Manager,

LIC of India,

Tenali, Guntur Dist.,

GUNTUR - ..… Respondents9642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent: Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/54/2014 (IR(M)) dated 4.08.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the removal from service of Sri K. Siva Krishna, Ex-Team, Class-IV LIC of India, Tenali Branch w.e.f. 24.01.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 167/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 6th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1862.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं 1 धनबाद के पंचाट (35/2014) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/01/2014-आईआर(बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2026

S.O. 1862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.35/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank their workmen.

[No. L-12012/01/2014–IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9643

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Reference Case No. 35/2014

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank, Patna

AND

Their Workman

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- None.

For the workman :- None.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:-Bank Dated 05/02/2026

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),Government Of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-12012/01/2014 -IR(B-II) dated 10/03/2014 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of Punjab National Bank, Patna and their workman Sri Dharamdas Paswan for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the workman Sri Dharamdas Paswan who worked as temporary sweeper on daily wages for

more than 9 years in the Goraiyasthan branch of Punjab National Bank is entitled to be reinstated and

regularized as full time sweeper? What relief he is entitled for?"

2. This case is taken through Special Campaign organized by Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India for disposal of pending cases.

3. On receiving order no. L-12012/01/2014 -IR(B-II) dated 10/03/2014 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 35 of 2014 was registered on 24.03.2014 and thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents and witnesses in support of their claims.

4. After receipt of the reference on 24.03.2014, this case was put up after a long gap on 28.12.2021 and regd. notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties appeared and filed their authorities, W/S and subsequently rejoinder. After 24.06.2022 management failed to appear before this Tribunal and regd. notice was issued to management but he again failed to appear. However Sri B. Prasad, Representative of the workman appeared on certain dates. Thereafter Sri B. Prasad appeared on 23.12.2025 and filed a petition that concerned workman is not interested to contest this case so case may be closed.

5. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that workman/union has lost his interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

6. Hence,

ORDERED

That this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a "No Dispute Award" be drawn up in respect of the above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer9644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1863.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स ईएस ईएसएस एंटरप्राइजेज; राष्ट्रीय खनिज विकास निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री नीलम वेंकट राव के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 23/2017) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-119]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1863.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 23/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/S Es Ess Enterprises; National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and Sri Nilam Venkata Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-119]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 23/2017

Between:

Sri Nilam Venkata Rao,,

S/o Verriyya,

D. No. 25-5-103,

Ramachandra Nagar, Nadupuru Post,

Pedagantyada Mandal,

Vishakhapatnam. .……….Petitioner

AND

1. M/S Es Ess Enterprises,

represented by its proprietor,

Quarter No.23-14-40,

Chinnamma vari Veedhi,

Behind I Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam-530001.

2. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

rep. by its General Manager,

Regional Office, Port area,

Visakhapatnam-530001 .……Respondents[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9645 Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri Nukula Venkateswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

Sri N. Venkata Rao who worked as Assistant Mechanic (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 M/S Es Ess Enterprises, Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for hearing, Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of notice, the Petitioner did not appear. It appears that the Petitioner do not want to prosecute the case. Accordingly, a "No Dispute" Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 5th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1864.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स ईएस ईएसएस एंटरप्राइजेज; राष्ट्रीय खनिज विकास निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री पिल्ला अप्पा राव पात्रुडु के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 24/2017) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-120]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 24/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/S Es Ess Enterprises; National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and Sri Pilla Appa Rao Patrudu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-120]

SALONI, Dy. Director9646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 24/2017

Between:

Sri Pilla Appa Rao Patrudu,

S/o Late Jagga Rao Patrudu,

D. No. 65-1-188C,

Srinivasa Nagar West, Malkapuram Post,

Vishakhapatnam. .……….Petitioner

AND

1. M/S Es Ess Enterprises,

represented by its proprietor,

Quarter No.23-14-40,

Chinnamma vari Veedhi,

Behind I Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam-530001.

2. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

rep. by its General Manager,

Regional Office, Port area,

Visakhapatnam-530001 .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri Nukula Venkateswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

Sri P. Appa Rao Patrudu who worked as Mechanic (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 M/S Es Ess Enterprises, Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for hearing, Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of notice, the Petitioner did not appear. It appears that the Petitioner do not want to prosecute the case. Accordingly, a "No Dispute" Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 5th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9647

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1865.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स ईएस ईएसएस एंटरप्राइजेज; राष्ट्रीय खनिज विकास निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री सूरी परदेसी के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 25/2017) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-121]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1865.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 25/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/S Es Ess Enterprises; National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and Sri Suri Pardesi which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-121]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 25/2017

Between:

Sri Suri Pardesi,

S/o Late Chinnayya,

D. No. 44-31-81/35(2),

Lakshmi Nagar, Kaliasapuram,

Vishakhapatnam. .……….Petitioner

AND

1. M/S Es Ess Enterprises,

represented by its proprietor,

Quarter No.23-14-40,

Chinnamma vari Veedhi,

Behind I Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam-530001.

2. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

rep. by its General Manager,

Regional Office, Port area,

Visakhapatnam-530001 .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri Nukula Venkateswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

Sri S. Pardesi who worked as Assistant Mechanic (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 M/S Es Ess Enterprises, Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for hearing, Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of notice, the Petitioner did not appear. It appears that the Petitioner do not want to prosecute the case. Accordingly, a "No Dispute" Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 5th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1866.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स ईएस ईएसएस एंटरप्राइजेज; राष्ट्रीय खनिज विकास निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री सब्बावरपु रामुनायडू के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 26/2017) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-122]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1866.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 26/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/S Es Ess Enterprises; National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and Sri Sabbavarapu Ramunaidu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-122]

SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9649

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.26/2017

Between:

Sri Sabbavarapu Ramunaidu,

S/o Demudu,

D. No. 10-149/2,

Papayyraju Palem, B.C. Colony,

Sujatha Nagar, Pendurthi Mandal,

Vishakhapatnam. .……….Petitioner

AND

1. M/S Es Ess Enterprises,

represented by its proprietor,

Quarter No.23-14-40,

Chinnamma vari Veedhi,

Behind I Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam-530001.

2. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

rep. by its General Manager,

Regional Office, Port area,

Visakhapatnam-530001 .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri Nukula Venkateswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

Sri S. Ramunaidu who worked as Electrician cum Assistant (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 M/S Es Ess Enterprises, Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for hearing, Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of notice, the Petitioner did not appear. It appears that the Petitioner do not want to prosecute the case. Accordingly, a "No Dispute" Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 5th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer9650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1867.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री एस. कोटेश्वर राव के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 13/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/24/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1867.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri S. Koteswara Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-17012/24/2018–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 2nd day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 13/2019

Between:

Sri S. Koteswara Rao,

59-8-31, Malkapuram,

District – Vishakhapatnam,

Pin code – 530011. .....….Petitioner

AND

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

LIC Building, Jeevan Prakash Road,

Vishakhapatnam – 530004 ..……Respondent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9651 Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/24/2018-IR(M) dated 14.12.2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether Sh. Satyala Koteswara Rao, designated as Direct Sales Executives (DSE-9078069) under the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam is workman as per section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947?

If yes, whether the termination from 01.04.2018 of the services of Sh. Satyala Koteswara Rao designated as Direct Sales Executive (DSE) by the Management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam is fair, legal and justified? If not, then what relief(s) including reinstatement in service the workman is entitled to and from which date? What other directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

"2. Whether the action of management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Visakhapatanam upon introduction of new scheme named as Chief Organizer (LIC Direct) Scheme, 2015 in place of the erstwhile LICI (Direct Sales Executives) Scheme, 2009 with its amendment by allegedly depriving the workman by changing the conditions of his service in terms of job security remuneration etc. is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 13/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Notice issued to the Petitioner by Speed Post was returned with the endorsement "Refused," which amounts to valid service. Despite service of notice and sufficient opportunities, the Petitioner has failed to file the claim statement. Accordingly, the Petitioner's opportunity to file the claim statement. In the absence of a claim statement, a 'No Claim' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 2nd day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1868.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री बी. उमा महेश्वर राव के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 14/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/25/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 14/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri B. Uma Maheswara Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-17012/25/2018–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 2nd day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 14/2019

Between:

Sri B. Uma Maheswara Rao,

507/A, Sector-IX, Ukkunagaram,

Vishakhapatnam – 530032 .....….Petitioner

AND

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

LIC Building, Jeevan Prakash Road,

Vishakhapatnam – 530004 ..……Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/25/2018-IR(M) dated 17.12.2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"1. Whether Sh. B. Uma Maheswara Rao, designated as Direct Sales Executives (DSE-9078069) under the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam is workman as per section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947?

If yes, whether the termination from 01.04.2018 of the services of Sh. Satyala Koteswara Rao designated as Direct Sales Executive (DSE) by the Management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam is fair, legal and justified? If not, then what relief(s) including reinstatement in service the workman is entitled to and from which date? What other directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

"2. Whether the action of management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Visakhapatanam upon introduction of new scheme named as Chief Organizer (LIC Direct) Scheme, 2015 in place of the erstwhile LICI (Direct Sales

Executives) Scheme, 2009 with its amendment by allegedly depriving the workman by changing the conditions of his service in terms of job security remuneration etc. is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9653 The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 14/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 2nd day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1869.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कं पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री के . नरसिह राव के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 68/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/25/2019-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1869.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 68/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s National Insurance Company Limited and Sri K. Narsing Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-17012/25/2019–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 68/2019

Between :

Sri K. Narsing Rao,

H. No. 12-2-531/B, Gudimalkapur,

Mehadipatnam,

Hyderabad – 500028 ....….Petitioner9654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND

The Chief Regional Manager,

M/s National Insurance Company Limited,

Hyderabad Regional Office, No.5-8-568,

Besides Petrol Pump, Nampally Station Road,

Jubilee Building, Hyderabad – 500001 ..……Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri S. Venkatesham, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri T. Koteswara Rao, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/25/2019-IR(M) dated 25.07.2019 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s National Insurance Company Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s National Insurance Company Limited in terminating the services of Sri K. Narsing Rao w.e.f. 08.08.2016 who worked as a Sub staff, is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief Sri K. Narsing Rao the workman is entitled for and from which date? What other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 68/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. It is informed that the Petitioner died on 25.04.2025. Further, vide order dated 01.12.2025, the LRs of the deceased Petitioner were directed to take steps to bring LRs on record in the claim statement. However, no steps have been taken by the LRs of Petitioner till date, despite sufficient opportunities being granted. Therefore, the claim statement is dismissed for want of prosecution and no claim award is passed. Reference is ordered accordingly.

Award is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 15th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1870.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एसएसवी क्रिएशन; आईजी मिट, एचसीएल पोस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्रीमती एम. ललिता;

श्रीमती चैताला कमला; श्रीमती एम प्रमीला के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 24/2026) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-124]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9655

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1870.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2026) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s SSV Creation; IG Mint, HCL post and Smt. M. Lalitha; Smt. Chaitala Kamala; Smt. M Prameela which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-124]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 24/2026

Between:

1. Smt. M. Lalitha,

W/o Krishnana 3-26,

Chelapally, Uppal,

Ranga Reddy, Telangana-500051.

2. Smt. Chaitala Kamala,

W/o Late Chitala Ramesh, 2-2-9,

Cherlapally, Medchal Malkajgiri,

Telangana-500050.

3. Smt. M Prameela,

W/o M. Srimalu, 2-2-99/7,

Peeda, Cherlapally,

Malkajgiri, Telangana-500051. .....….Petitioners

AND

1. M/s SSV Creation,

Flat No. 101, Nagarjuna Nagar,

Sree Ramakrishna Towers, Ameerpet,

Beside Image Hospital,

Hyderabad, Telangana-500073.

2. The General Manager (HR),

IG Mint, HCL post,

Cherlapally, Hyderabad-500051 ..……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate (For R2)9656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. 8/5/2026-B1 dated 06.04.2026 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s SSV Creation, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the workmen having been engaged for several years at the India Government Mint, Cherlapally, Hyderabad have acquired any legal right to continued employment?"

"Whether the action of the contractor M/s SSV Creation and the management of India Government Mint, Cherlapally, Hyderabad in denying the employment to the said workmen is legal and justified in accordance with applicable labour laws and regulation?"

"If the above actions are found to be illegal or unjustified, to what relief are the workmen entitled?" The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 24/2026 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioners remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioners have failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 3rd day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1871.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री पी. नागराजू के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 31/2014) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/39/2013-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1871.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 31/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri P. Nagaraju which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-17012/39/2013–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9657

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31/2014

Between:

Sri P. Nagaraju,

S/o Yanadhi,

Ward No. 11, Devudumanyam,

Gulamhusain Thota Street,

Bapatla,

GUNTUR – 522101 ......Petitioner

AND

1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam,

MACHILIPATNAM- 521001

2. The Branch Manager,

LIC of India, Bapatla Branch,

Guntur Dist.,

GUNTOOR - …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri M.V.L. Narsaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri KRL Sarma, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/39/2013-(IR(M)) dated 18.02.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the removed from services of Sri P. Nagaraju, Ex-Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Bapatla Branch w.e.f. 01.02.2013 is legal and justified. If not, what other relief the workman entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 31/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Notice sent to Petitioner returned with endorsement "insufficient address", hence return to sender". Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer9658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1872.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार फे रो स्क्रै प निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और फे रो स्क्रै प स्टाफ एंड वर्क र्स यूनियन के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 22/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/81/2018-आई.आर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1872.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited and Ferro Scrap Staff & Workers Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-42011/81/2018–IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 22/2019

Between:

The General Secretary,

Ferro Scrap Staff & Workers Union,

Vizag Unit, CITU Office, Sec-II,

Ukkunagaram,

Vishakhapatnam - 530032 ......Petitioner

AND

The Asstt. General Manager,

Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited,

Inside Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,

Post Box No.25,

Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530031. …… Respondent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9659 Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: M/s. D. Ravishankar Rao, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/81/2018 (IR(DU)) dated 03.01.2019 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Vishakhapatnam by issuing transfer order unilaterally in respect of Sri K. Rajendra Prasad, HEME Operator (who has already served in Bokaro for 14 years and was posted to Vishakhapatnam unit in 2014) from Vishakhapatnam unit to Bokaro unit is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 22/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity did not file any claim statement. Petitioner opportunity closed. Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, in absence of claim statement 'no claim' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1873.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स वेंकट एंटरप्राइजेज; मेसर्स एचपीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और एचपीसीएल कॉन्ट्रैक्ट वर्क र्स यूनियन के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 23/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/48/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1873.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 23/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Venkat Enterprises; M/s HPCL and HPCL Contract workers Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-30011/48/2018–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 23/2019

Between:

The President/ General Secretary,

HPCL Contract workers Union,

Regd. No 91/2012, Cherlapally (M),

Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy Dist. – 501301 ......Petitioner

AND

1. The Executive Director,

M/s Venkat Enterprises, Contractor of HPCL,

Plot No. 88, Opp. Sai Baba Temple,

Devinagar Colony, Kapra,

ECIL Post, Hyderabad – 500062.

2. The Chief Plant Manager,

M/s HPCL, Cherlapally LPG Botting Plant,

Hyderabad, Telangana 500051 …… Respondents Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: M/s K. Udaya Sri & Sudheer Rao, Advocates (For R1)

M/s Shaik Siddikh & Jhawar Meghana, Advocates (For R2)

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-30011/48/2018-IR(M) dated 14.12.2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Venkat Enterprises Contract of HPCL and other, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of HPCL Contract Workers Union for re-employment of contract workers after new work order given by M/s HPCL, Botting Plant, Cheriapally as Principal Employer to contractor and after replacement of manpower by automated machines is proper and justified? If yes, what reliefs the workers entitled to? What directions are necessary in the matter?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 23/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1874.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स राष्ट्रीय इस्पात निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और विशाखा स्टील कर्मचारी कांग्रेस (इंटक) के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 24/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-26011/32/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1874.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and Visakha Steel Employee's Congress (INTUC) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-26011/32/2018–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 24/2019

Between:

The General Secretary,

Visakha Steel Employee's Congress (INTUC),

Shramik Bhavan, Near CISF Barracks,9662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Main Approach Road, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,

Visakhapatnam – 530031. ......Petitioner

AND

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited,

Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant,

Vishakhapatnam - 530031

…… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-26011/32/2018-IR(M) dated 16.01.2019 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant, Vishakhapatnam, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam in discontinuing the benefit of City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) to non-executives of RINL is proper, legal and/or justified under ID Act, 1947? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 24/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity Petitioner/union did not file any claim statement. Petitioner opportunity closed.

Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, in absence of claim statement 'no claim' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9663

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1875.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सिरीशा जियो ग्रेनाइट्स (पी) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और तेलंगाना मल्टी कॉन्ट्रैक्ट वर्क र्स यूनियन के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 18/2022) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-27011/2/2021-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1875.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 18/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Sireesha Geo Granites (P) Ltd. and Telangana Multi Contract Workers Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-27011/2/2021–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 18/2022

Between:

The General Secretary,

Telangana Multi Contract Workers Union,

Flat No. 204, Balaji Towers,

Telangana – 500050 ......Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s Sireesha Geo Granites (P) Ltd.,

Plot No. 16-21-HIG/117, KPHB Colony Phase VI,

Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500085 …… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 27011/2/2021 (IR(M)) dated 24.12.2021 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Sireesha Geo Granites (P) Ltd., and the Telangana Multi Contract Workers Union, and their workmen. The reference is,9664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of M/s Sireesha Geo Granites (P) Ltd., in terminating the employment of 30 Workers (list enclosed) without notice is justified or not? If not, what relief workmen are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 18/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Notice sent to Petitioner returned with endorsement "insufficient address", hence returned to sender". Petitioner/union has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence a No-Claim Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1876.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री चीकती कोमरैया के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 67/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-125]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1876.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 67/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Cheekati Komaraiah which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-125]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LCID No.67/2009

Between:

Sri Cheekati Komaraiah,

S/o Narasaiah,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9665 R/o. Peddapuram (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner

AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Banglore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s A. Raghu Rana Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s S.Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Cheekati Komaraiah who worked as labour (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 M/S Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice. Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1877.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री मामूनुरु चंद्रैया के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 69/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-126]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1877.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 69/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mamunuru Chandraiah which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-126]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LCID No.69/2009

Between:

Sri Mamunuru Chandraiah,

S/o Narsaiah,

R/o. Peddapuram (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner

AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Banglore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s A. Raghu Rana Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s S.Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Mamunuru Chandraiah who worked as labour (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 M/S Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice.

Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1878.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री मोर नरसैया के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 71/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-127]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1878.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 71/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri More Narasaiah which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-127]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.71/2009

Between:

Sri More Narasaiah,

S/o Sayanna,

R/o. Lingamadugu (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner9668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Banglore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s A. Raghu Rana Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri More Narasaiah who worked as Drilling labour (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 M/s. Yark Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Insufficient Address." The case was posted for the Petitioner evidence. Despite sufficient opportunities having been granted, the Petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence. It appears that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. There is, therefore, no evidence on record to substantiate the claim. Accordingly, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1879.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री एलुकाटी कोम्मलु के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 72/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-128]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9669

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1879.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 72/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Elukati Kommalu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-128]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LCID No.72/2009

Between:

Sri Elukati Kommalu,

S/o Narsaiah,

R/o. Peddapuram (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner

AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Bangalore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s A. Raghu Rana Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s S.Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri S. Ramunaidu who worked as Electrician cum Assistant (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 M/S Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd., Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice.

Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1880.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री थुडुम सम्मैया के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 75/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-129]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1880.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 75/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Thudum Sammaiah which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-129]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LCID No.75/2009

Between:

Sri Thudum Sammaiah,

S/o Narsaiah,

R/o. Peddapuram (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9671 AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Banglore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s A. Raghu Rama Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Thudum Sammaiah who worked as Labour (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 M/S Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice. Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1881.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री रायराकु ला इलैया के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 86/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-130]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1881.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 86/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Rayarakula Ilaiah which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-130]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.86/2009

Between:

Sri Rayarakula Ilaiah,

S/o Kanakaiah,

R/o. Peddapuram (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner

AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Banglore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s A. Raghu Rana Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Rayarakula Ilaiah who worked as labour (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 M/s Yark Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice.

Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1882.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री डोड्डु कोम्मलु के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 87/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-131]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1882.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 87/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Doddu Kommalu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-131]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.87/2009

Between:

Sri Doddu Kommalu,

S/o Ilaiah,

R/o. Lingamadugupalli (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner9674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Banglore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s A. Raghu Rama Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Doddu Kommalu who worked as labour (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 M/S Yark Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice. Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1883.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री एलुकाटी मल्लैया के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 88/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-132]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9675

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 88/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Elukati Mallaiah which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-132]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.88/2009

Between:

Sri Elukati Mallaiah,

S/o Durgaiah,

R/o. Peddapuram (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner

AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Banglore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s A. Raghu Rana Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s S.Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Elukati Mallaiah who worked as labour (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 M/S Yark Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice.

Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1884.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स याक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री मोठे इस्त्री के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (एल सी रिफरेन्स न.- 90/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-133]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1884.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (LC Reference No. 90/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mothe Isthari which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-133]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.90/2009

Between:

Sri Mothe Isthari,

S/o Bakkaiah,

R/o. Peddapuram (V),

Atmakur (M), Warangal Dist., .……….Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9677 AND

1. The Managing Director,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai – Banglore Road, Chembaram Pakkam,

CHENNAI – 602103.

2. The Manager,

Enterprising and Enterprises,

M/s Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Peddapuram (V), Atmakur (M),

Warangal District. .……Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/s. A. Raghu Rama Aurava & G. Srinivas, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s Venkateshwar Rao & M. Govind, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Mothe Istari who worked as Loading labour (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 M/S Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity and with all other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice. Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K.Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1885.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत एल्युमीनियम कं पनी लिमिटेड; मेसर्स ईगल हंटर्स सॉल्यूशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री छथन कु मार दुबे के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 08/2023) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-134]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 08/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd; M/s Eagle Hunters Solution Ltd. and Shri Chhathan Kumar Dubey which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-134]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR (M.P.)

NO. CGIT/LC/R/08/2023

Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)

1. Shri Chhathan Kumar Dubey,

S/o Late Shri Yamuna Dubey,

R/o H.No. A/3, Ward No. 19,

Ropakhar Township BALCO,

Post- Kamleshwarpur,

Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 497111

Workman

Vs

1. The Mines Agent,

M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd.,

(BALCO), Mainpat Mines,

PO-BALCO Nagar,

Korba (Chhattisgarh) 495684

2. The Director,

M/s Eagle Hunters Solution Ltd.,

Eagle House, 61C, Kalu Sarai,

Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi- 110016

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 13th day of July, 2026)

As per letter dated 14/17-02-2023 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. RP-5(1-1)/2023-ES.III dt. 14/17-02-2023. The dispute under reference relates to:-

"Whether the action on the part of the Management of M/s Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO) & M/s

Eagle Hunters Solutions Ltd., New Delhi in Terminating Shri Chhathan Kumar Dubey, Ex-Security Guard is legal

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

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim in defense.

Case of the workman is mainly that he has been continuously working in the Manipat Bauxite Mines of the BALCO the opposite party No. 1 from 05th August, 2005 in the security establishment of the mines as security guard, he worked there as security guard till 30.09.2021, his employment was shown as an outsourcing employee through different contractors engaged by BALCO from time to time. In fact, only the names of the contractors changed, the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9679 workman continued working at the site of BALCO as security guard. His provident fund was deducted in the provident fund trust of BALCO and not in the provident fund codes of different contractors which also goes to show that in fact he was employed by the BALCO itself. According to the workman, the outsourcing contractors are sham and camouflage adopted by management of BALCO just to deny the workman of his legally admissible claims regarding permanent status and regularization.

He was disengaged by management without notice or compensation. This action of management is in violation of section 25-F and 25-G of the Act. The management has adopted unfair labour practice by engaging the workman as security guard for 16 years as a contract labour. The workman has thus prayed that holding the termination of his service against law, he be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.

The management of BALCO has taken a case that the workman was never appointed by them, he never worked as their employee hence there is no relation of employer and employee between them and the workman, infact the workman was engaged by different contactors and was deputed by the contractors to work at the site of the management as security guard under an outsourcing agreement between the contractors. The contractors were paid their charges and they used to pay wages to the workman. The provident fund of the workman was deposited with the trust maintained by the management of BALCO thus to ensure that contractors discharge their legal obligation to deposit the provident fund dues of their workman as it is the duty of the management of BALCO as Principal Employer. It is also the case of the management that the workman was appointed by the contractors, paid by the contractors, the contractors had the authority to dismiss or take any action against him and they had control and supervision with his duties. He was posted as directed by the contractors and not directed by management of BALCO. Accordingly, management of BALCO has prayed the reference be answered against the workman.

The contractor M/s Eagle Hunters Solution Ltd., has also filed written statement of defence in which they have stated that they were contractors for a small period with BALCO which ended on 21.09.2021. They have been awarded contract for supply of security guards, they had supplied the applicant workman to work as security guard at the site of BALCO, the Principal Employer, he was disengaged after the contract came to an end.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit as his Examination-in-chief, he has been cross-examined by both the managements, and he has also filed and proved Ex-W/1, reply of the mines In-charge of BALCO submitted by him before the Labour Commissioner on 20.12.2022 with respect to dispute raised by him. Ex-W/2 is the reply of the Contractor before the Labour Commissioner.

The management of BALCO has filed affidavit of its witness Mr. Bhoopesh Kumar Sirsant as his Examination-in-chief. He has been cross-examined by workman. Management has further filed copies of different outsourcing agreements admitted by the workman. Management of contractor, M/s Eagle Hunters Solution Ltd., has also filed affidavit of its witness Mr. Braj Bhooshan Pandey as his Examination-in-chief, he has been cross-examined by workman side.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman, Mr. Y. C. Sharma, Learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel for management of BALCO and Mr. Neeraj Kewat, Learned Counsel for Contractor, M/s Eagle Hunters Solution Ltd. I have gone through the record as well.

On perusal of on record, in light of rival arguments, the reference itself is the issue for determination.

Learned Counsel for the workman has submitted that, he has been shown to be engaged by different contractors during the different period. These contracts are sham and bogus, camouflage adopted by management to deny the workman his legally admissible rights. The workman has continuously worked with the management from 05.08.2005 to 30.09.2021 and was retrenched without any notice or compensation. Learned counsel further submits that by way of engaging the workman, as contract labour for such a period just with a view to deny him, his legally admissible rights is unfair labour practice adopted by management. This Tribunal is within its powers to undue the civil consequences of such an unfair labour practice and grant relief to the workman.

Learned counsel for management has submitted that the workman was an outsourced employee, engaged by different contractors at different points of time. There was no relationship of employer employee within him and the management of BALCO. He was not terminated by the management of BALCO rather was terminated by the outsourcing company who had engaged him, hence, there is no question of his illegal termination.

Pleadings of the parties have already been detailed earlier, according to the workman himself, he worked right from August, 2005 till date of his termination under different contractors, last was M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions, with whom he alleges to worked from 2018 to 2021. His case is that, in fact, he was engaged by management of BALCO as a security guard, but was shown as outsourced employee engaged by the outsourcing agency and deputed at the site of the management of BALCO, which is incorrect, camouflage and sham, adopted by management just to deny him, his legally admissible rights.

The workman has stated on Oath that, his PF was deducted by management of BALCO and was deposited in the PF trust maintained by management of BALCO. He has further stated in his affidavit that only contractors kept9680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] changing, he remained working with the management of BALCO. He further states in his affidavit that his services were regulated by management of BALCO, he has referred to order of management of BALCO dated 13.10.2018 and 31.12.2019 filed with the statement of claim but these documents were not proved, hence, cannot be read in evidence in his favour. He further states that security officer of management of BALCO used to check his presence.

Learned counsel for the management of BALCO and contractor has referred to affidavit of their witness filed as their Examination-in-chief, in which the witness from BALCO, stated that workman was a contract worker outsourced by the outsourcing agency at the site of management of BALCO to work as a security guard, he was appointed by the outsourcing agency and was terminated by the outsourcing agency. He was paid his wages by the outsourcing agency, his services were also regulated by the outsourcing agency. Learned counsel has further submitted that simply, the case of management of BALCO had some say in deputing the security guard at place they wanted, it cannot be said that their services were regulated by the management of BALCO nor it can be said that the management of BALCO had any control or supervision on the working of the workman.

The contract documents with respect to different contractors and last contractor M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions filed and proved also corroborated the case of management.

Hence on the basis of above discussion, the contracts cannot be said to be sham or camouflage and are

held not be sham and camouflage.

The case of the contractor, M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions is that the workman was disengaged after their contracts with the management of BALCO for supplying of manpower of security guard came to end. Undisputedly, the workman worked from 2018 to 2021 with M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions and he was not paid any notice or compensation. Hence, in absence of any documents from M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions contractor to show that the engagement of workman was contractual for a fixed period, the disengagement of the workman was without notice pay and compensation, is held in violation of section 25F and 25G of the Act.

As regards, the second case of the workman that the management adopted unfair labour practice by way of engaging contract labour on a job of permanent nature for years and years to deny him his legally admissible rights. From the evidence on record as mentioned above, this fact is established that the workman worked as a security guard at the site of management of BALCO from 2005 to 2021. Hence, adoption of unfair labour practice in the case in hand by the management of BALCO is being established.

For the sake of convenience, Section 2(ra) of the Act is being reproduced as follows:

2(ra) "unfair labour practice" means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;

THE FIFTH SCHEDULE See section 2(ra) UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES I.—On the part of

employers and trade unions of employers

10. To employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with

the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.

Section 10 Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, is being reproduced as follows:-

"10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation

with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official

Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.

(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate

Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour that

establishment and other relevant factors, such as-

(a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade,

business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment ;

(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is so of sufficient duration having regard to the

nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment;

(c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment

similar thereto;

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen.

Explanation.- If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature,

the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final."

It is also established that this work of Chowkidar at present is being taken through manpower supplied by outsourcing agencies. Hence, the nature of the work is of permanent nature.

Section 25-T & 25-U prohibits unfair labour practice under the Act. It is punishable as a crime.

25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union,

whether registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit

any unfair labour practice.

25U. Panelty for committing unfair labour practices.—Any person who commits any unfair

labour practice shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to

six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

This Tribunal is well within its powers to undo the civil consequences of such an unfair labour practice.

There are criminal consequences of unfair labour practice adopted by the parties. The Act does not provide civil consequences to unfair labour practice but it does not mean that the Courts and Tribunals are without power to undo the civil consequences of unfair labour practice as it has happened in the case in hand.

Following paragraphs of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of, Sudarshan Rajpoot v/s U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2015) II, SCC 317, are being reproduced as follows:-

11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant workman that the High Court has

erred in placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) case [State of

Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , which was distinguished inasmuch as

the said case is not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that the appellant workman is a

"workman" as defined under Section 2(z) of the UPID Act and the respondent is the statutory corporation

which is an undertaking of the State Government and therefore, as it is an instrumentality of the State

Government, it will come within the definition of "industry" as defined under Section 2(k) of the UPID

Act. Therefore, the said provisions of the UPID Act are applicable to the appellant workman as he is a

"workman" as defined under Section 2(z) of the UPID Act and Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.

12. Further, it is contended that the High Court has failed to consider the "unfair labour practice" as

defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Sections 25-T and 25-U and Schedule V of the

ID Act. Item 10 of Schedule V of the ID Act prohibits the employer to employ workmen as badlis, casuals

or temporaries and to continue them as such for years in the Corporation, with the object of depriving

them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen is prohibited. It is further contended that the

respondent Corporation is liable for Panel action under the provisions of Section 25-U of the ID Act. In

support of the above contention, reliance was placed on the three-Judge Bench decision of this Court

in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare [Chief Conservator of

Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] .

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation sought

to justify the correctness of the finding and reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned

judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] .

Alternatively, it is contended that even if the order of termination is bad in law, the workman who is

working on the contract basis is not entitled for reinstatement with full back wages as per the view taken

by this Court in several decisions. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits

that the impugned judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-

3-2008 (All)] and order need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

14. With reference to the abovesaid rival legal contentions the following substantial questions would

arise for our consideration:

14.1. (i) Whether the High Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment [U.P.

SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] , order and reversing

the award passed by the Labour Court?

14.2. (ii) Whether the order of termination passed against the appellant workman amounts to

retrenchment as defined under Section 2(s) of the UPID Act, 1947?

14.3. (iii) Whether non-compliance with the statutory provisions under Sections 6-N and 6-Q of the

UPID Act which are analogous with Sections 25-F and 25-H, respectively, of the ID Act, 1947 renders the

order of termination void ab initio in law?

14.4. (iv) What relief is the appellant workman entitled to?

15. To answer the above substantial questions of law it is necessary for this Court to extract the order

of termination passed by the Assistant Regional Manager of the Corporation, which reads thus:

"OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGIONAL MANAGER,

U.P. TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AZAD NAGAR DEPOT

Letter No. ARM/A. Ngr/Bus Accident 0582/2000/3591 dated 29-7-2000

OFFICE ORDER

On 7-6-1999 vehicle bearing No. 8582 which had met with an accident which was being driven on 7-

6-1999 by Shri Sudarshan Rajpoot, contractual driver and conductor Shri Kamta Prasad on Deoria to

Kanpur route and accident occurred on the way at 1.30 a.m. in the night at Village Palhari, Barabanki

near Police Station Safdarganj and due to negligent driving of the driver, department suffered heavy loss.

Hence, in order to meet departmental loss, forfeiting security of driver Shri Sudarshan Rajpoot, I

pass the order to strike off his name from the contract roll with an immediate effect. His name be struck

off from contract roll.

sd/-

(Illegible)

(Sad Sayed)

Assistant Regional Manager,

Azad Nagar, Depot"

(emphasis supplied)

In the aforesaid order of termination it is specially mentioned that the appellant workman was appointed

as a driver on contractual basis. It has been further stated that the accident occurred on 7-6-1999 due to

the negligent driving of the appellant workman resulting in heavy loss to the Department of the

respondent Corporation. In order to meet the departmental loss, security amount of driver was forfeited

and Assistant Regional Manager had struck off the name of the appellant workman from the contract

employees roll with immediate effect.

16. The respondent Corporation has neither produced documentary evidence nor showed before the Labour Court that the appellant workman was appointed on contract basis. The fact that he deposited Rs 2000 towards security amount with the respondent Corporation indicates that he was working as a driver on a permanent basis. In view of Schedule V, Item 10 of the ID Act, 1947 the respondent Corporation is prohibited from engaging the appellant workman as a badli, casual or temporary workman to work on permanent basis. The fact that he had been continuously working for more than 3 years and he had rendered more than 240 days of service as the driver in a calendar year until his termination order and yet he is being engaged on a contractual basis in the respondent Corporation is statutorily prohibited. The same amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with Section 25-T, which action of the Corporation is punishable under Section 25-U of the ID Act. This legal position is settled by this Court in Chief Conservator of Forests case [Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 302-03, para 22)

"22. … In our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference mentioned in the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. We further state that the present was such a case inasmuch as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen who went to the Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for long years with the primary object of depriving them of the status of permanent employees inasmuch as giving of this status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered, that the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace, which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence permanent. We would say the same about environment-pollution-care work of Ahmednagar, whose need is on the increase because of increase in pollution. Permanency is thus writ large on the face of both the types of work. If, even in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on casual basis for years the object manifests itself; no scrutiny is required. We, therefore, answer the second question also against the appellants."

25. This Court in the later judgment in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India [Hari

Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , after

adverting to the law laid down in U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh [(2007) 5 SCC 755 :

(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] and Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan

Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] wherein Umadevi (3) case [State of

Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is adverted to in both the cases, held

that on a harmonious reading of the two judgments, even when there are posts available, in the absence of

any unfair labour practice the Labour Court cannot give direction for regularisation only because a

worker has continued as daily-wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, such

a direction cannot be given when the worker concerned does not meet the eligibility requirement of the

post in question as per the recruitment rules:

25.1. It was held at para 32 in Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation

of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] as under : (SCC p. 211)

"32. However, the Court in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya

Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] found that the factual

position was different in the case before it. Here the post of cleaners in the establishment was in existence.

Further, there was a finding of fact recorded that the Corporation had indulged in unfair labour practice

by engaging these workers on temporary/casual/daily-wage basis and paying them paltry amount even

when they were discharging duties of eight hours a day and performing the same duties as that of regular

employees."

25.2. Furthis, Hari Nandan Prasad [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7

SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] referred at para 36, LIC v. D.J. Bahadur [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981

SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083] in which the relevant para 22 of LIC case [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981

SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083] is extracted as under : (Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan

Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , SCC p. 213)

"36. … '22. The Industrial Disputes Act is a benign measure which seeks to pre-empt industrial

tensions, provide the mechanics of dispute resolutions and set up the necessary infrastructure, so that the

energies of the partners in production may not be dissipated in counterproductive battles and the

assurance of industrial justice may create a climate of goodwill.' (D.J. Bahadur case [(1981) 1 SCC 315 :

1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083] , SCC p. 334, per Krishna Iyer, J.)

In order to achieve the aforesaid objectives, the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals are given wide

powers not only to enforce the rights but even to create new rights, with the underlying objective to

achieve social justice. Way back in the year 1950 i.e. immediately after the enactment of the Industrial

Disputes Act, in one of its first and celebrated judgment in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees [1950 SCC 470

: AIR 1950 SC 188 : 1950 LLJ 921 at p. 948] this aspect was highlighted by the Court observing as under

: (AIR p. 209, para 61)

'61. … In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal

is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on

either party which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any

existing agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of

the parties. It can create new rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping

industrial peace.'"

25.3. And again at para 37, observing that the aforesaid sweeping power conferred upon the Tribunal

is not unbridled and is circumscribed by this Court in New Maneck Chowk Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. Textile

Labour Assn. [AIR 1961 SC 867] , the relevant para 6 of which is extracted as under : (Hari Nandan

Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S)

408] , SCC p. 213, paras 37-38)

"37. … '6. … This, however, does not mean that an Industrial Court can do anything and everything

when dealing with an industrial dispute. This power is conditioned by the subject-matter with which it is

dealing and also by the existing industrial law and it would not be open to it while dealing with a

particular matter before it to overlook the industrial law relating to that matter as laid down by the

legislature or by this Court.' (Textile Labour Assn. case [AIR 1961 SC 867] , AIR p. 870)

38. It is, thus, this fine balancing which is required to be achieved while adjudicating a particular

dispute, keeping in mind that the industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principle of

fair play and justice."

26. In view of the aforesaid statement of law laid down by this Court after adverting to the powers of

the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Court as interpreted by this Court in the earlier decisions referred

to supra, the said principle is aptly applicable to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that

the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact in favour of the workman that the termination of services of

the appellant herein is not legal and valid and further reaffirmed the said finding and also clearly held

that the plea taken in the order of termination that he was appointed on contract basis as a driver is not

proved by producing cogent evidence. Further, we hold that even if the plea of the employer is accepted,

extracting work though of permanent nature continuously for more than three years, the alleged

employment on contract basis is wholly impermissible. Therefore, we have held that it amounts to an

unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Section 25-T which is

prohibited under Section 25-U, Chapter V-C of the ID Act, 1947. We have to hold that the judgment of the

High Court in reversing the award is not legal and the same is set aside by us.

21. In the order of termination, it is alleged that on account of negligent driving of the bus by the

appellant workman the accident of the vehicle happened, the said allegation was neither proved in the

inquiry required to be conducted nor producing evidence before the Labour Court by the respondent

Corporation. Therefore, the High Court has failed to examine the above vital aspects of the case on hand

and erroneously interfered with the award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its extraordinary and

supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This exercise of power is

contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing

Corpn. [(2010) 3 SCC 192 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1146] , wherein this Court held thus : (SCC p. 205,

para 21)

"21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under

Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-

bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social

welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the

Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38,

39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the

promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of

material resources of the community to subserve the common good and also ensure that the workers get

their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that:

'10. … the concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives

sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State.'

(State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines [AIR 1958 SC 923] , AIR p. 928, para 10.)"

24. We are of the opinion that the view taken in Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe

Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] at para 36 after

distinguishing Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S)

753] is the plausible view. Therefore, we have to hold that the finding of the High Court in setting aside

the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court in its award by applying Umadevi (3) case [State of

Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is wholly untenable in law. Therefore,

the same is set aside by this Court.

23. Further, the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court on Umadevi (3) case [State of

Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] by the High Court to reverse the

finding of fact recorded in the award in favour of the workman in answering the points of dispute in the

negative, is not tenable in law in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe

Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari

Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] , wherein, this Court after adverting

to Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] at para

36, has held that the said case

"does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with

Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which

they have been working exist". (SCC p. 574)

Further, this Court held that : (SCC p. 574, para 36)

"36. … Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]

cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate

order under Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established."

By not employing a person on permanent regular basis against the permanent job and engaging him as

contract labours for a work of permanent perennial nature either directly or by outsourcing agencies, the

management is held to have adopted unfair labour practice which is prohibited under the Act.

Reference may be taken of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v/s Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 , the relevant paragraphs of this judgment are being reproduced as follows:-

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case,

reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private

sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often

characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for

exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding

the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative

employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only

mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can

erode public trust in governmental operations. ………

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions,

often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may

have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade

long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:- Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and

integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when

their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,

security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination:- Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or

notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects

workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression:- Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from

opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their

roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their

contributions being equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:- Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed

by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not

only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer

regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:- Temporary employees are often denied fundamental

benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans

decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in

cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

The principle laid down in the case of Jaggo (Supra) has been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024 (2025 INSC 144). The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced as follows:-

"12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer's municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-based. Reliance on a general "ban on fresh recruitment" cannot be used to deny labor protections to long serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of "equal pay for equal work," repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer's direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements.

14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or

temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such

absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that

are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain

conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements

persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which

shows no true contractor based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the

alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or

continued unfair practices.

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several

years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the

Employer's failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference

under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or

contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally,

workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as

dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be

appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a

recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt

terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in

minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a

marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their

work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful

back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen

stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were

terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that

they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual

uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit

consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable

entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have

served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18. The impugned order of the High

Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without

continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:-

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with

Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or

communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be

treated as continuing in service from thereof their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and

continuity in service.

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or

posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their

entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for

continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the

back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent

Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.

IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for

regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering

the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing

regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such

requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in

the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent

Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not

indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms."

In the case of The Municipal Council, Rep. By Its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District, A.P. v/s K. Jayaram and Others etc. Etc., 2026 Live Law (SC) 38, Hon'ble the Apex Court, has laid down that outsourced employees cannot be regularized by the principal employer because there is no relation of employer-employee between the principal employer and the employee. Hon'ble Supreme Court, issued direction to management in that case to consider regularization of the workman if he was found otherwise fit. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is being reproduced as follows:-

"Having passed the order, we feel that sometimes justice is required to be tempered with mercy as

human factors cannot be totally lost sight of. In such view of the matter, we would require the appellant to

look into whether the jobs which were being done by the respondents, in the background that they have not

been disengaged or returned to the contractor on the ground of being unsatisfactory, having uninterrupted

service under the appellant for decades can be regularized on posts, which prima facie appears to be perpetual

in nature. We make it clear that this direction is limited for the purposes of the present case only as it has been

passed in the special facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any

other case. We expect the appellant to take a compassionate and sympathetic view in the matter." Almost

similar are the facts in the case in hand.

From the above discussion two facts are being established;

1. Disengagement of the workman by M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions without any notice pay and

compensation is against 25F and 25G of the Act.

2. The management of BALCO had adopted, unfair labour practice by taking the work from the

workman as a contract labour for about 16 years i.e., from 2005 to 2021.

Undisputedly, the workman has been suffering from Cancer, hence, not in a position to resume his job. Learned counsel for the workman has referred to Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. vs Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union, (2024) 3 SCR 627, but this judgment can be justified on facts because it relates to settlement with respect to regularization reached at between the management and the Union in which some workers were regularized as per settlement and remaining were left out though they had the same case.

In light of above discussion and findings, lump sum compensation to the workman in lieu of all the claims be a just and equitable remedy in the case in hand. The compensation is quantified at Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac Only) to be paid equally by M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions and management of BALCO within 90 days from the date of Award along with interest @ 6% from the date of his termination till payment.

AWARD

"Holding the action of Management of M/s Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO) & M/s Eagle Hunters

Solutions Ltd., New Delhi in Terminating Shri Chhathan Kumar Dubey, Ex-Security Guard, illegal, arbitrary and

unjustified, he is held entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs Only) to be paid equally by M/s

Eagle Hunter Solutions and management of BALCO within 90 days from the date of Award along with interest

@ 6% from the date of his termination till payment. Reference stands answered accordingly."

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 13-07-2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1886.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार वित्तीय सेवा विभाग; भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री अकबर खान मंसूरी के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 15/2017) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-135]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1886.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 15/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Department of Financial Services; Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Akbar Khan Mansoori which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-135]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR

CGIT/LC/RC/15/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Akbar Khan Mansoori,

S/o. Shri Mohd. Asgar,

Aged about 49 years,

R/o. 155, Khijrabad Chouraha,

Above Ujjain Gold Bakery,

Khajrana, Indore (M.P.)

Workman

Versues

1. Union of India, through its Secretary

(Financial Services),

Department of Financial Services,

Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,

IIIrd Floor, Jeevandeep Building,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi

2. The Chairman,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Yogakshema Jiwan Bima Nirman Point,

Mumbai, 400021

3. The Zonal Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Zonal Office, 60-B, "Jeevan Shikha",

Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.)

4. The Senior Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Divisional Office, 19 Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Indore (M.P.)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 21st day of July, 2026)

Workman filed this petition u/s 2A (2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as amended by Amendment Act of 2010 (in short the 'Act') with the case that he joined the services of the Life Insurance Corporation on 10.12.1990 as an Assistant and after being transferred in many Branches, he was transferred to Khandwa Branch in the year 1996, were he worked as Assistant up to 2007. He was promoted to the post of Higher Grade Assistant and was transferred to Sendhwa Branch in 2007 from where he was transferred back to Khandwa Branch in 2008. He was posted as Higher Grade Assistant in 2013 in Indore Branch No.2 of the Corporation. An explanation was sought from him regarding financial irregularities, said to be committed by him during his posting at Khandwa Branch vide Memo No.992 dated 08.07.2013 (Annexure W/5 to the statement of claim). He filed his response to the Memo vide his reply dated 22.07.2013 (Annex. W/6 to the statement of claim) and denied the allegations. He further submitted that in the year 2009, when the alleged incidents occurred, one Higher Grade Assistant Chattarsingh Kanare was posted in the Accounts Department and was also working as Officiating Cashier. In fact, all these irregularities were committed by the said Chattarsingh Kanare. A Departmental Inquiry was also conducted against him, where he admitted all the charges. He did deposit the amount of loss occurred to Corporation due to these irregularities committed by him and was removed from service after inquiry. Now, the workman was being asked to explain about the same charges for which Chattarsingh Kanare was dismissed from the service on his admission of the irregularities.

The Workman was served a charge sheet dated 02.02.2015, by the Disciplinary Authority containing as many as six charges, which were the same charges leveled against the Chattarsingh Kanare. He was asked to submit his written reply to the charges within 10 days. He did submit his reply. He denied the charges and again stated that all this misconduct was done by Chattarsingh Kanare, who was dismissed by Management after inquiry in which he admitted the charges and the amount of loss occurred to Corporation by these acts of misconduct were also deposited by him. List of documents Ex. P/1 to P/35 was also attached with the charges. The Charge sheet as well the list of documents is Annex.W/7 to the Statement of claim. The Charges leveled against Chattarsingh Kanare is Annex.W-8 to the statement of claim. The reply of Chattarsingh Kanare with respect to the chargers is Annex.W/8. Copy of inquiry proceedings against Chattarsingh Kanare and an inquiry report as well as the order of the Disciplinary[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9689 Authority are Annex.W/9 and W/10 of the statement of claim. Appeal of Chattarsingh Kanare was also dismissed. Copy of the appeal is Annex.W/11 to the statement of claim.

It is further the case of the workman that, the same charges have been leveled on him after one year from the date the Chattarsingh Kanare was charged for the same charges on same allegations which is malafide on the part of the Management and the Departmental Inquiry was conducted against him ignoring all the principles of natural justice and fairness. Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding the workman guilty of the misconduct as charged against him. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued show cause notice to the workman with the copy of inquiry report. The workman did file his response to the inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly rejected his response and passed an impugned order of punishment which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary as well disproportionate to the charges proved and also ignoring the fact that on the same charges Chattarsingh Kanare was also punished. An Appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority which was arbitrary on his part.

The workman raised a dispute in this respect before the concerned Labour Commissioner (Central). After failure of conciliation within 45 days, he filed this petition seeking his reinstatement with all back wages and benefits, setting aside the order of his dismissal from the services.

Case of the Life Insurance Corporation as taken by them in their written statement of defense, is mainly that, while the workman was posted as Higher Grade Assistant in the Khandwa branch of the Corporation, he had aided and facilitated transactions which were fraudulent and irregular, by which Corporation was put to loss of Rs. 2,89,750/- thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and honesty as well devotion towards his duty and was issued a charge sheet on 02.02.2015. He submitted his reply on 17/02/2015, by which he denied the allegations. The Management decided to conduct an inquiry. Mr. S.N. Daby was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Mr. Ajay was appointed as Presenting Officer. After an inquiry, in which the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself, he was found guilty of misconduct Under Rule 21, 24 and 39(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation Staff Regulations, 1960 (in short the "Regulations") by the inquiry Officer in his inquiry report dated 19.01.2016. He was issued a show cause notice with the copy of inquiry report. He did file a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of MP W.P. No. 989/2016. During the pendency of the inquiry which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 08.02.2016,he thereafter filed an application on 12/02/2016, seeking summoning of additional documents and requested to extend the time granted to him for reply to show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority. After considering his reply on show cause notice and material on record the Disciplinary Authority Senior Divisional Manager Indore passed order of removal from services along with order regarding recovery of Rs. 82,250/- from the workman in punishment with respect to proved charges under Clause 21, 24 & 31(1) of the Staff Regulations. He filed a mercy petition against this punishment order dated 25/02/2016, which was dismissed by Appellate Authority on merits vide its order dated 24/12/2016. It is further the case of Management that the inquiry was just, proper and legal. The Charges were rightly held proved and the punishment is also not disproportionate to the charges proved. Management has requested that the petition be dismissed.

In his rejoinder, the petitioner workman has mainly retreated his case.

On the basis of pleadings, following preliminary issue has been framed vide order dated 06/09/2024.

Whether the inquiry conducted against the workman is legal and proper?

The workman filed his affidavit, also filed affidavit of co-worker Chattarsingh Kanare. Management also filed affidavit of its witness.

The documents with respect to charge, inquiry and punishment have been filed, which are part of record.

The preliminary issue was decided after hearing vide order dated 06/08/2025. The Departmental Inquiry

was held just, legal and proper. This order is part of this judgment and award.

Following additonal issues were framed thereafter.

1. Additional Issue No.1 -

Whether the findings of the enquiry officer and its congruence by Disciplinary Authority that the charges

are proved is perverse?

2. Additional Issue No.2 -

Whether, punishment is proportionate to the charge?

The workman filed his affidavit on additional issues. Management did not file any affidavit.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. S.N. Pillai for the petitioner workman and Mr. Amitab Bharti, Learned Counsel for the LIC. Written submissions have been also filed by the workman side, which are part of record. I have gone through the record as well the written submissions.

Additional Issue No.1 -

The charges leveled against the workman are being reproduced as follows -

Charge Sheet

"You, Shri Akbar Khan Mansoori, Pay No. 218842, Branch No. 2, Indore Division, Indore, before

transfer, are charged with the following irregularities while posted as Senior Division Assistant in Khandwa

Branch of Indore Division

That you have issued loan vouchers in the following policies without the application of the policy holder

and policy bond and from the same vouchers, without the application of the policy holder, issued cheques in favour

of the Corporation/others which were adjusted/deposited by Shri Chhattar Singh Kanare himself in your/your

wife's/others' policies/own account as per the table given below.

That as mentioned in No. 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the above table, respectively,

1] By cheque No. 2485 for Rs. 40000/- drawn in favour of the Corporation under policy No. 342743205 of

insured Shri Parminder

2] By cheque No. 50283 for Rs. 35000/- drawn in favour of Shri Chhatar Singh Kanare under policy No.

344822525 of insured Shri Rajesh Soni

3] By cheque No. 50000/- drawn in favour of the Corporation under policy No. 342744655 of insured Shri

Allahbaksh 2487 and

4] You have also signed as a signatory on cheque No. 50916 for Rs. 24500/- drawn in favour of the

Corporation under policy No. 342752476 of the insured Shri Mukhtiar Khan.

In this way, you yourself were involved in this embezzlement act and you also directly cooperated in the

embezzlement act due to which a total financial loss of Rs. 289750/- was caused to the Corporation.

You have thus failed to maintain complete integrity and devotion to duty towards the Corporation. You

have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation and in violation of Regulations 21, 24, and

39 [1] of the IBPS Employees' Regulations, 1960, for which you are liable to one or more of the penalties [a] to [g]

specified in Regulation 39 [1]."

(Originally it is in hindi, translated in English)

As it comes out from perusal of inquiry proceedings, which started on 30/03/2015, the copies of documents P-1 to P-35 (total 55 pages) were served on the workman and 16/04/2015 was fixed as next date. From perusal of the proceedings of inquiry dated 16/04/2015 and 18/06/2015,it comes out that questions were asked by the Presenting Officer to which the applicant workman replied during the inquiry. On being asked by the Presenting Officer, whether the Loan voucher No. 411573 dated 22/09/2009, with respect to Policy No. 342749197 of Policy holder Rajesh Kumar was prepared by him, He admitted it. In response to another question, whether, he had ensured that application of the policy holder, discharge letter and policy bound as well other related documents were bounding by him from the policy holder, he stated that he would have acted on the basis of all the documents. In response to question that he prepared the voucher regarding payment without insuring that loan application and policy documents was available or not, he prepared voucher No. 411573 dated 22/09/2009 for amount Rs. 1,07,500/-. He also counter signed the cheque of this amount. He replied to these question that in fact Chattarsingh Kanare had done all this, he also admitted that he prepared adjustment of Rs. 40,000/- for this amount relating to policy No. 342743205, policy holder Parminder and also prepared voucher No. 411830 dated 24/10/2009 and Cheque No. 50283 for amount Rs. 35000 in favour of Chattarsingh Kanare and not in favour of the policy holder of policy No. 3444822525 of Shri Rajesh Soni, who was in fact entitled to this amount. He stated that, these vouchers were also signed by him but not with the view to misappropriate the amounts. In fact, Chattarsingh Kanare got prepared these vouchers and cheques. He might be negligent but never acted with dishonesty. In the proceedings of next date i.e 18/06/2015, he had admitted the preparing the loan vouchers and signing the cheques with respect to other policies related to policy holder Mukhtyar Khan and Rakesh, amount of which was adjusted/deposited against EMI of his wife and he himself through his loan accounts and loan account of his wife, he replied that in fact he deposited the amount of EMI of his loan by way of cash by giving the cash to Chattarsingh Kanare but he could not produce any deposit slip in this respect. He further stated that in fact Chattarsingh Kanare deposited the amounts of the cheques in petitioners loan account and loan account of his wife as the EMI's with respect to the loan accounts related to petitioner and his wife.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner workman has submitted that no witness appeared from the side of the Department to prove these documents, hence these documents cannot read in evidence against the petitioner workman because they have not being proved by anyone. He has referred to following judgment in this respect –

1. Roop Singh Negi V.s. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570, held that "findings in Departmental

Inquiry must be based on some evidence, suspicion cannot replace proof."

2. Kuldeep Singh V.s. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10 held that "findings based on no evidence or

irrelevant material are perverse and liable to be set aside."

3. State of UP V.s. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 held that "non examination of witnesses and

reliance on unproved documents vitiates inquiry."

4. State of Uttrakhand V.s. Kharak Singh (2008) 08 SCC 236 held that "denial of opportunity to cross-

examine witnesses violates natural justice."

5. LIC of India V.s. Ram Pal Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491 held that "documents must be proved by admissible

evidences, mere marking is not proof."

6. Union of India V.s. H.C. Goel (AIR 1964 SC 364) held that "if conclusion is based on no evidence, it is

liable to be quashed."

7. Ramchandra Rao V.s. State of A.P. (AIR 1960 SC 172) held that "fraud must be proved with clear and

cogent evidence, not presumed."

8. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29758/2018 Stayendra Singh V.s. State of UP

(2024 INSC 873).

Following paragraphs of this judgment are being reproduced as follows –

14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi, this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough,

contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof

reads as under:

"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer

performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be

found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into

consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected

during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be

treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said

documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the

contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could

not have been treated as evidence.

15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been

placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the

police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was

tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession

should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he

had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct the report

demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence.

The tenor of his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis

that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.

…..

19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case (2006)

4 SCC 713: 2006 SCC (L&S) enquiry was held to have been based on no evidenside The

appellant report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same therein in the

aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary

proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was

arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have

jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by

the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record...."

15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 12 wherein, this Court held

that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by

the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are

proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha 13 are as follows: -

"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent

adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary

authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department,

even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether they are proved. In the present

case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined

the documents have not been proved, and could the charges have been proved against the

respondents. not have been taken into consideration to conclude that unrebutted evidence is

sufficient to hold that the charges are proved.

……….

33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to

documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the

inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single

witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High

Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been

conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair

play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an

explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet."

16. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala14, this Court held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry

cannot be used for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to

cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. Relevant extract thereof reads as

under: -

"42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway (AIR

1960 SC 992), held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular

alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know

as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings

recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to

take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to

be held.

43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah. Union of while taking a similar view held that

preliminary inquiry should India [AIR 1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court not be

confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of

Article 311(2) of the for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though Constitution of

India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte, from the government servant even at such an

inquiry. But at usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought that stage, he has

no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government as to whether

a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under: (AIR P. 1862, para 12)

"12.... There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only

when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of

inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishments indicated in

Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that article [, nor

prior to that]."

44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299: 1997 SCC

(L&S) 152: AIR 1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt with the issue and held as under:

"….a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of

charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry

should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules,

the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held

strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of (sic) nor,

remains of no consequence."

45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be

used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-

examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using süch evidence would be

violative of the principles of natural justice.

17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non is record the evidence of the witnesses for proving

the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the toucherone of the Risties of 1999, and the

law as expounded by this Comet in the cases of Roop Singh Negiis and Nirmala J. Jhalals we are of the

fem view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable

with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever

was recorded by the department in support of the charges.

I am not inclined to accept the argument of Learned Counsel from the side of petitioner that since the documents are not proved by any witness during the inquiry, they cannot be read in support of the charges. Reason behind is that the workman never disputed these documents, rather he admitted these documents as the inquiry proceeding reveals. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for the Department to prove these documents. There is no quarrel with the settled proposition of law that there must be at least some evidence admissible in law to connect the delinquent with the charge. It is the settled proposition of law that charges in Departmental Inquiry need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is required in Criminal Trials.

Following judgments are being reproduced in this respect –

Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and

independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd.

vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255

Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature:

Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the

charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e.

beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial

function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of

probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into

consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of

proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref:

(i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10, 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani

Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)

In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 (vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."

In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite

distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.

In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case. "

Now, coming on facts of the case in hand and findings during the inquiry, the workman has admitted his signatures on cheques, who were misappropriated by way of transferring some of the amounts in the accounts of Chattarsingh Kanare and some amount in the loan account of petitioner and his wife. Even if it is assumed that the policy holders had applied for loans or amounts against their policies, the amounts should have been transferred to them and not in the account of Chattarsingh Kanare or loan account of the petitioner and his wife. The cheques bear the signatures of the Chattarsingh Kanare and the workman both. Hence, though undoubtedly Chattarsingh Kanare was involved in these misconducts, the workman cannot avoid his liability or part of his liability in aiding and abating these fraudulent transactions as is the evidence on record.

Learned Counsel for petitioner workman has further submitted that the inquiry against him was instituted after one year of removal of Chattarsingh Kanare with respect to same charges after a Departmental Inquiry against him in which he admitted the charges and deposit the amount of loss. Hence, it is malafide. But, in the light of facts and circumstances mentioned above I am not inclined to accept this argument. No doubt, Chattarsingh Kanare had major role to play in these fraudulent transactions because maximum of amount has been transferred to his accounts but the workman also played his role in at least in signing on cheques which were fraudulent and preparing vouchers without proper verification and formalities as well allowing transfer of same amounts of the cheques, details mentioned in the charges loan amount and loan account of his wife.

On the basis of above discussion and findings of the inquiry officer with respect to charges in his inquiry

report and congruence by Disciplinary Authority cannot be held to be perverse. The findings are affirmed and

Additional Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Additional issue No. 2 –

Learned Counsel for the petitioner workman has submitted that otherwise the workman had sterling service record, he might be negligent in these transactions, but he never acted dishonestly. All the loss has been recovered by Chattarsingh Kanare as because he was main player. He has referred to following judgments in this respect –

1. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank V.s. Employees Association (2007) 4 SCC 669 held

punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct.

2. Ranjit Thakur V.s. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611 held that the punishment should not be so

disproportionate as to shock the conscience.

3. B.C. Chaturvedi V.s. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 held that the past service record must be

considered while awarding punishment.

Learned Counsel for Management Corporation has submitted that the charges are grave as they involved fraudulent financial transactions by way the Workman has also benefited. They are act of moral turpitude. No establishment can afford to continue an employee who has no integrity hence the punishment is not disproportionate to the charges proved.

Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally

substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed

by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High

Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate

authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional

and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

"6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a

conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining

all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty

imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness

expected of an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the

delinquent person concerned works."

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon'ble Apex Court on review of a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal position in the following words:

"11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators' decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of

logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not

go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should

not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review

is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.

Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment

by recording cogent reasons in support thereof."

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows:

"8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a

result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only

if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved."

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:

"The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless

shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

"The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review,

the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary

authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment

unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would

shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment

by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would

not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 :

(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587

7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)

In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:

"Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence

is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that

discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of

confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed."

In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645 Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that:

"Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which

would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or

reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved."

The allegations proved for the misconduct are more than one. The fraudulent transactions are more than one and are all identical in nature. The workman has also benefited himself from these fraudulent transactions. Hence, the charges proved are act of moral turpitude. They show lack of integrity, honesty and devotion of duty on the part of the petitioner workman. No employer can afford to continue such a workman who lacks the integrity, honesty and devotion of duty. Hence, the punishment is held not disproportionate to the charges proved and the Additional Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

No other point was pressed.

On the basis of above discussion and findings the petition fails.

ORDER

Petition dismissed.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 21/07/2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9697

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1887.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ़ इंडिया; अपसॉट यूटिलिटी सविसेज़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री अजय कु मार कु शवाहा के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 28/2020) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-136]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1887.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Airport Authority of India; Upsot Utility Services and Shri Ajay Kumar Kushwaha which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-136]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR

CGIT/LC/R/28/2020

Present: P.K.Srivastava,H.J.S..(Retd)

Ajay Kumar Kushwaha,

I-54/7, South T.T. Nagar, Bhopal,

District Bhopal, (MP) - 462003

Workman

Vs.

1. The Director, Airport Authority of India

Raja Bhoj Airport, Gandhinagar,

Bhopal, District Bhopal, (MP) 462036

2. Manager,

Upsot Utility Services,

Raja Bhoj Airport, Gandhinagar,

Bhopal, District Bhopal, (MP) 462036

Management

AWARD

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

As per letter dated 05.03.2020 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act')as per Notification No. J-1(1-21)/2020-IR dt 05.03.2020. The dispute under reference relates to:

"क्या, नियोजक / ठेकेदार, अपसोट यूटिलिटी सविसेस (जो कि भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण, राजा भोज विमानतल, भोपाल की स्थापना में कार्यरत थे) व्दारा आवेदक श्री अजय कुमार कुशवाह को मौखिक आदेश के व्दारा9698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] दिनांक 29/06/2019 से कार्य से बंद किया जाना उचित है? यदि नहीं तो उक्त कामगार अपने पूर्व के कार्य पर उसी स्थिति

में नियोजन तथा संबंधित अनुतोष पाने के अधिकारी है।"

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim in defense.

According to the workman, he was appointed on the post of Housekeeping by the management from 2004 till 2019, when he was dismissed on 29.06.2019 by management without any notice or compensation, which is in violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act. The workman has further prayed that holding his termination against law, he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.

The case of the Airport Authority is that they had not appointed the workman at any point of time. They have granted contract for mechanized environment support services in the Bhopal Airport premise to the management No. 2, M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services, their agreement period was to expire on 36 months from the date of agreement i.e., 01.08.2018, in fact the workman was employed by the Contractor Agency.

The contractor M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services, did not appear in spite of services, hence case proceeded ex-parte against them.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit as his Examination-in-chief, she has been cross-examined by Airport Authority. Airport Authority has filed affidavit of its witness, Mr. Dharam Raj Verma as his Examination- in-chief. He has been cross-examined by workman side. Management has filed and proved Ex-M/1, which is the appointment letter of the workman and Ex-M/2 the agreement. The workman has filed and proved certified statement of his bank account. No evidence has been adduced by the outsourcing agency, M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Ravish Devaliya and Mr. Pranay Choubey, Learned Counsel for Airport Authority of India. None appeared for the outsourcing agency. I have gone through the argument and record as well.

The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.

Both the sides have corroborated their pleadings in their affidavit as their Examination-in-chief.

The statement of account of the workman shows that money has been transferred in his account on regular basis by the outsourcing agency and not from the account of Airport Authority of India. The appointment letter to the workman has been issued by the outsourcing agency.

The management as Airport Authority does not dispute the allegation of the workman that he worked for 240 days and more in every year. The workman has corroborated his this allegation in his written statement which is supported by his statement of account.

From above discussion, it is established that the workman was infact employed by the outsourcing agency in 2004 and not by the management of Airport Authority of India, hence, there is no employer-employee relation between the workman and Airport Authority rather the workman is held to be employee of the outsourcing agency, M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services.

Since, it is not disputed that the workman worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his date of termination and also that she was not paid any compensation, his termination is held in violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act.

As regards to relief, keeping in view the fact that the workman worked only for two years as an employee of outsourcing agency, this contract was to expire after 36 months of its execution, which was in 2018, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of the claims of the workman to be paid to his by the outsourcing agency within 30 days from the date of publication of award, failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till payment will meet the ends of justice, to which the workman is held entitled.

On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered as follows:-

AWARD

Holding the action of the management in dismissing workman Shri Ajay Kumar Kushwaha from the job

of employer M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services, Bhopal (establishment of Airport Authority of India) w.e.f. 29.06.2019

is illegal and unjustified, she is entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of all his claims to be

paid within 30 days from the date of publication of award, failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

award till payment.

DATE:- 24/07/2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9699

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1888.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री वेद प्रकाश तिवारी के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 08/2016) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/22/2012-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 08/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-17012/22/2012–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR

CGIT/LC/R/08/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari,

S/o Shri Ramchandra Tiwari,

C/o Shri Bhaiyalal Tiwari,

Behind Poonam Bhawan,

Gali No. 3, Dhawari, Satna (M.P.)

Workman

Versues

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Krishna Complex,

Krishna Nagar, Satna (MP)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 16th day of July, 2026)

As per letter dated 07.01.2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act')as per Notification No. L- 17012/22/2012-(IR(M)) dt 07.01.2016. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of the LIC of India, Satna in terminating the services of Shri Ved

Prakash Tiwari, Ex-daily rated peon is just, proper and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

Notices were sent to the parties on the basis of reference. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim.

Case of the workman as taken by him in his statement of claim is that, he is duly qualified and educated, and was appointed as a Peon on daily rate basis with the Management of LIC, vide order dated 15.02.1992 and worked with outmost honesty and sincerity till 1999, when his services were terminated by Management by an oral9700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] order without any notice or compensation, or without any enquiry, giving him any opportunity of hearing. He had worked for 240 days and more in very year, including the year preceding the date of his disengagement. The Management is an industry under Section 2(j) and he is a workman as defined under Section 2 (j) of the Act. His disengagement amounts retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act. He was not served any notice nor paid any compensation on his retrenchment, hence this action of Management is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act, the Workers, who were engaged after his engagement, are still working with the Management. Hence, the action of Management is in violation of Section 25H of the Act also. He raised a dispute in this respect before the Conciliation Officer, after failure of conciliation the dispute was referred to this Tribunal. The workman has alleged that this action of Management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He has requested that setting-aside his termination, he be reinstated with full back-wages and benefits.

Case of the Management is mainly that, the workman was appointed on temporarily basis, as a daily wager only for 85 days from 16.04.1996 to 09.07.1996, as a temporary waterman. After expiry of 85 days, he was disengaged, the Management denied that the workman worked continuously from 1992 to 1999, also denied that he worked for 240 days or more in any year. According to Management, their action is not in violation of the Act, they have requested that reference be answered against the workman.

In his rejoinder, the workman has mainly reiterated the allegations made in his statement of claim.

In evidence, the workman has filed and proved one experience certificate dated 04.11.1996, 45 payment vouchers, paid to him regarding payment from the period within 02.08.1996 to 25.05.1998 (Ex. W-2).

It is further to mention here that, an application for production of documents i.e. payment vouchers for the period from 15.02.1992 to 1999 and attendance register of casual employees for the said period was to be filed. The Management took a case that, the vouchers have been destroyed, they have filed and proved attendance sheet for the period May and June, 1996, attendance sheet for the said period, which are Ex. M-1 to M-6.

The workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief and he has been cross-examined by Management of L.I.C. The Management of LIC has filed affidavit of its witness Lalit R. Daushalya, he has been cross examined by workman side.

I have heard arguments of Learned counsel for the workman Mr. Aditya Ahiwasi and Mr. Pranay Choubey, Learned Counsel for the Management of LIC. I have gone through the record as well.

Learned Counsel for the Workman side has submitted that, from the evidence on record, the workman has proved his continuous engagement from 1992 to 1999 as alleged by him. The Management has not paid any retrenchment compensation and this fact is also proved from evidence on record, the records are maintained by the Management, which they failed to produce, hence adverse interference will be drawn against them.

It has been submitted by Mr. Pranay Choubey, Learned Counsel for L.I.C. that firstly, the claim is barred by unexplained delay on the part of the workman. According to the workman himself, he was disengaged in 1999, whereas he raised dispute in 2016, this delay is not been explained. Secondly, he was appointed only for period of 85 days, just as a waterman, and documents with respect to his employment and payment in from of attendance register and payment sheet have been filed. The payment vouchers for the period 1992 to 1999 have been weeded out as per rules, hence are not available. The workman has miserably failed to prove his continuous engagement for 240 days and more in any year. Hence, action of Management is justified in law. The Workman is entitled to no relief.

Learned Counsel for workman has relied on following judgments –

1. Civil Appeal No. 12139/2025 Prem Chand & Ors. V.s. State of Punjab.

2. W.P. No. 20156/2015 State of M.P. V.s. Gajraj Singh Rajpoot

Learned Counsel for Management has relied upon following cases –

1. Mohd. Ali V.s. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2018) AIR (SC) 2194.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination –

1. Whether, the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement as per Section 25B,

as alleged by him?

2. Whether, the disengagement of workman is in violation of Section 25F and 25G and 25H of the

Act?

3. Subject to finding on issue No. 1 & 2, whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

Issue No. 1 –

Section 25B of the Act is being reproduced as follows –

25B. 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 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;

(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.

Pleadings of the parties have been elaborated earlier on this issue.

Case of the workman is that, he worked continuously from 1992 to 1999, till date of his disengagement and completed more than 240 days in every year. Case of the Management is that, he worked only for 85 days, as a waterman for the period 16.04.1996 to 09.07.1996 and thereafter he never worked. The Workman has filed and proved his experience certificate dated 04.11.1996, issued by the Senior Branch Manager (photocopy), which states that he worked as a Sub-staff from the period 03.07.1992 to 04.11.1996. He has further filed and proved photocopies of payment vouchers, for the period 1996 to 1998. In his affidavit as his examination in chief, he has corroborated his allegations on this issue as detailed earlier.

He admits in his cross-examination that no advertisement was released for recruitment, his name was not sponsored by Employment Exchange, there was no recruitment process and he was just engaged. Also that, no formal appointment letter was issued.

There is no cross-examination from side of Management on the documents filed and proved by the workman as referred to above.

On the other hand, the Management witness has stated in his affidavit as his examination in chief that the workman worked only for 85 days i.e. from 16.04.1996 to 09.07.1996, as temporary waterman and never worked thereafter. Management has filed documents with respect to his employment for the said period and relating document, sought to be produced by the workman, the Management has filed in his affidavit that all these documents have been weeded out.

Learned Counsel for the workman has submitted that, documents with respect to payment are maintained by the Management. They have not produced it. Hence, an adverse interference will be drawn against them. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Management that there is a period for weeding of records and they have weeded it after the expiry of the period. There was no occasion to keep them indefinitely because there was no dispute in this respect. In the case in hand, since the dispute was itself raised by the workman with long delay of more than 10 years, it was quite natural for the Management to weed out their records according to rules framed by them. Hence, no adverse interference can be drawn in case in hand in case of failure of Management to produce the payment vouchers for the said period.

The Management witness himself admits that, he is posted in the said Branch since 2025 only, and his statement is only on the basis of records. It shows that this witness does not have any information with respect to engagement of the workman for the period 1992 to 1999. Secondly, the case of Management is contradicted by the documents Ex. W-1 and W-2, which are experience certificates issued by the then Branch Manager of the Branch for the period 1996 to 1998, which establishes that the workman worked even after the period said by the Management in this respect and before the said period also. Hence, holding the finding of workman more reliable on this issue, it is held that the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement as per Section 25B of the Act.

Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2 –

Section 25F and 25G and 25H are being reproduced as follows-

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

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

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

notice;

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

days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

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

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

25G. Procedure for retrenchment.—

Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he

belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the

employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last

person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman.

25H. 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 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of

India to offer themselves for reemployment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re-

employment shall have preference over other persons.

Undisputedly, no notice pay or compensation was given to Workman, hence the action of Management in disengaging the workman is held in violation of the action by Section 25F and 25G of the Act. As regards to violation of Section 25H of the Act, as alleged by the workman is also held not proved due to absence of any details in this respect.

Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 3 –

In the case in hand, the workman has raised a dispute after a gap of 10 years. Learned Counsel for the Workman has submitted that, he been given assurances from time to time that his grievance will be readdressed but there is no evidence in this respect. Hence, it is held that the claim of the workman is with unexplained delay on his part.

Furthermore, there is nothing to show that he was engaged against a sanctioned vacancy. He himself admits that he did not follow any recruitment process. In these circumstances, his reinstatement will not meet the ends of justice.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of

all his claims of the workman is held to be just and equitable in the case in hand, to which the workman is held

entitled, to be received from Management within 90 days from the date of Award, failing of which, interest @6%

from the date of Award till payment.

On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference is being answered as follows.

AWARD

Holding the action of the management of the LIC of India, Satna in terminating the services of Shri Ved

Prakash Tiwari, Ex-daily rated peon is unjust, illegal & arbitrary.

An amount of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of all his claims of the workman is held to be just and equitable in the

case in hand, to which the workman is held entitled, to be received from Management within 90 days from the date

of Award, failing of which, interest @6% from the date of Award till payment.

DATE:- 16/07/2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9703

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1889.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल मिनरल डेवलपमेंट कॉरपोरेशन (एनएमडीसी) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और ऑल इंडिया एनएमडीसी वर्क र्स फे डरेशन; मेटल माइन्स वर्क र्स यूनियन (आईएनटीयूसी) के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 46/2023) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/02/2023-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 46/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) and All India NMDC Workers Federation; Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-29011/02/2023–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/46/2023

Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)

1. The President,

All India NMDC Workers Federation,

Khanji Bhavan, 10-3-311/A,

Castle Hills, Masab Tank,

Hyderabad – 500028

2. The Secretary,

Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC),

Shramik Khadan, Near Bus Stand,

Kirandul, Dattewada (Chhattisgarh) - 494556

Workman

Versues

The Executive Director,

National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC).

Kirandul, Kirandul Complex, Distt. – Dantewada,]

Dattewada (C.G.) - 494556

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 17th day of July, 2026)

As per letter dated 13/07/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act')as per Notification No. L/29011/02/2023 (IR(M)) dt. 13/07/2023. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether actions of the employer NMDC Ltd., Kirandul in considering all the components of wage

revision, maintained equilibrium while revising the pay of their employees in the year 2007, 2012 & 2017 and by

not adding the Minimum Guarantee Benefit(MGB) @ 23% to certain group of employees i.e. 18 nos of Electrician,

13 no. of Assistant Grade and 12 Hospital staff (list attached), as raised by All India NMDC workers Federation

Union vide their representation through e-mail dated 10.08.2021 are proper, legal and justified? If not, to what

reliefs are the Union/ concerned workers are entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?"

The Case of the workman Union, as taken by them in their statement of claim, is mainly that, they are a Registered Union, engaged for the benefits of the Workmen employed under the Management of NMDC Project at Kirandul. It has authorized the applicant Rajendra Kumar Yadav, the Office Bearer of the Union, to prosecute claim of their member Workmen before this Tribunal. This authorization letter is Annexure P-2 to the Statement of claim. The Management is a Government undertaking, owned by the Government of India and established under Companies Act, 1956, hence 'State' under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The dispute involves 43 members who are the Applicants in this case. Three of them have died, they are Ratan Majhi, Nagendra Singh and Chandra Murari Nishad all Senior Electrician Grade – II, hence the claim remains at present with respect to 40 persons only who are prosecuting the claim. These employees are affected with regard to wage revision due to them from 01.01.2012 under Clause 3.0, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Memorandum of Wage Revision signed between the Management and the Union on 19.02.2014. Before this agreement, employees got regularized on their respective posts and drawing salary on regular pay scale as follows-

RS-3-9450-3%-13170 (Lab Technician)

RS-6-10350-3%-15750 (Nurses)

The DA and Minimum Guaranteed Benefit(MGB), which is the basic component, have been fixed in the pay scale of the workmen under the said wage revision, which was finally signed on 19.02.2014 but was implemented from 01.01.2012. It was impressed on the Workman that pay scale under this Wage Agreement for RS.3, RS.4 and RS.6 will be as follows-

RS 3-11670-3%-20600 (Junior A.G.-III, Dresser, Lab Technician)

RS 4-12030-3%-21220-(Stenographer)

RS 6-12780-%-22520 (Sr. Electrician).

According to the Workman Union, in fact, their wages were reduced under the Bi-partite Settlement wage revision as compared to the old scale. This issue was raised by the Workmen before the Management and the Management agreed that they will grant pay protection to those employees who joined the Management between 01.01.2012 to 19.02.2014, the date when the Bi-partite Settlement was signed. Thereafter, the Management formed pay scale by using component of old basic + MGB (Minimum Guarantee Benefit) from RS-1 to RS-10 scales and guaranteed pay protection to the Applicants by using Old Basic+ Notional Amounts (Equal to the then the D.A.).

It is further the case of the Workman Union that, as per the above information, the Workmen/Employees/First party calculated their salary on the basis of revised wage structure/ pay scale (ex. RS-3- 11670-3%-20600) as per their eligibility and found that the wage was getting down as compared to old pay scale (ex. RS-3-9450-3%-13170) and all the affected Workmen/Employees/First party sought a meeting with the authorities of the Management/Second party through the Union (INTUC), to talk about the above issue. Thereafter, the meeting was held between the members of the Union (INTUC)/First party and Management/Second party and in the said meeting both the parties jointly came to this conclusion that the Management/Second party will give pay protection to those employees who joined corporation between 01.01.2012 to 19.02.2014, till when the Tripartite Settlement was signed. Thereafter, the Management/First party formed pay scale by using component of Old Basic + MGB from RS-1 to RS- 10 and gave pay protection to the Workers/Employees/First party by using Old Basic + Notional amount (Equal to the then DA).

Thereafter, the Workmen/Employees/First party raised the objection for MGB (Minimum Guaranteed Benefit) but, they have been intimated that, MGB is for those Employees who are on the roles of Company as on 31.12.2011. Because, then the Workmen/Employees/First party were newly recruited employees of the Company and they did not understand the terms and conditions of the Company, and they did not even know how the pay scale was fixed and which pay scale they were entitled to, but in the clause no. 3.6.3 of the wage settlement of 2014, which stated that MGB will not be given to employee who will join Corporation after 01.01.2012, while component used for[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9705 formation of the pay scale for the same i.e. basic + MGB, it means that the employee who will join corporation after 01.01.2012 would get the MGB. Vide Page-8 of Memorandum of settlement dt. 19.02 2014. It is the violation of clause 3.5 Minimum Guaranteed Benefit MGB.

That, the next Workmen/Employees Pay Revision was due from 01.01.2017 and same was signed on 06.02.2019, before its Tripartite Settlement Workmen/Employees/First party came to know that, the pay scale had been formed for the Workmen/Employees by using components i.e. Basic + DA +100%MGB, again the Workmen/Employees discussed this issue with their authorities of the Union regarding new pay scale for RS-1 to RS- 10 is consisting 100% MGB, while as per previous practice, MGB is for regular employees who are on the rolls of the Company before due date of wage revision i.e. 31.12.2016, therefore, the employees who will regularized/joined corporation on or after 01.01.2017 his/her pay scale will be his/her basic and they will draw salary on that basis, therefore, itself he/she would get benefits of MGB. Vide Page-8 of Memorandum of settlement dt. 06.02.2019, it is the violation of clause 5.0 Minimum Guaranteed Benefit MGB, Copy of Memorandum of settlement dated 06.02.2019 filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5.

That, on the basis of above, the Workers/Employees have also enquired regarding MOU of Wage Revision which was due from 01.01.2007 signed on 01.05.2010 by the Management/First party and all India NMDC Works Federation & its affiliated Unions under the provisions of section 12 (3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for fixing the wage structure and the formula have been laid down for the benefit of the Workers/Employees enrolled since 01.01.2007 and found that, then the pay scale was formed for newl employees, consisted of Basic + DA + 18.91% MGB or Notional Amount. (Page-8 of Memorandum of settlement dated 01.05.2010). It is the violation of clause 3.5 Minimum Guaranteed Benefit MGB). Copy of Memorandum of settlement dated 01.05.2010 filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-6.

They did file a Writ Petition No. 6378/2019, W.P. No. 6402/2019 and 6405/2019. These petitions were dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The Writ Appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, they raised a dispute before the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner which could not be conciliated, hence this reference. The Workman Union has prayed that the Applicant members be held entitled to 23% Minimum Guaranteed Benefit from the due date which is being guaranteed to other similarly situated employees under the Management with all consequential benefits and interest.

Case of the Management is mainly that, these Applicants were regularized in the services of the Management during the period from August, 2012 to September, 2014 as per the Bi-partite Settlement dated 19.02.2024 effective between the period 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016, the pay of the employees were fixed in terms of the above agreements and a relevant rules. Their claim is that minimum wage and wage structure for all scale of pay namely RS 1, 2 and 3 and so on fixed by the Company is not proper because merger of DA and MGB with per revised pay i.e. RS 8900-3%-12400 were not extended while rising minimum wage structure effective from 01.01.2012 under the Bi-partite Settlement (RS 11000-3%-19410) compared to Wage Revision by Company effective from 01.01.2007 to 01.01.2017. It is further the case of the Management that fixation and framing of Wage Structure is based on Bi- partite Settlement dated 19.02.2014 effective for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2017 duly accepted and signed by the Unions and Management, hence binding on the parties including the applicants. Now, this settlement cannot be challenged. Moreover, pay scale with respect to employees who were on regular rolls of the Company between 01.01.2012 to 19.02.2014 i.e. the date of signing of Bi-partite Settlement was guaranteed. The present states of Applicants are not covered under pay protection category and their pay was fixed on minimum of the revised expenses of the pay, they are not entitled for any MGB. Also, it is the case of the Management that, at the present the bi-partite wage settlement dated 01.01.2017 is in force till date and the previous settlement of 19.12.2014 is not in force. According to the Management the Applicants are not entitled to benefits which they are claiming. The Management has sought that reference be answered against the Workman Union.

In evidence, the Workman Union has filed and proved documents Ex. W-1 to W-15 to be referred to as and when required. They have further filed affidavits of Union Representatives Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Ravish Tiwari as their examination in chief. They have been cross-examined by Management. The Management has filed affidavits of its witness Deepak Kumar Bail as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined from the side of the Union.

I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel Mr. Chandrahash Dubey for the Workman Union and Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anoop Nair assisted by Mr. Neeraj Kewat Learned Counsel for Management. I have gone through the record as well.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments the issue which arises for consideration in the case in hand is as follows-

Whether the settlement with respect to memorandum of wage revision signed on 19.02.2014 between the Union

and Management is binding in the case in hand or not.

Undisputedly, the settlement dated 19.02.2014 was signed between the Management of NDMC and their Workmen represented by All India NDMC Workers Federation and its affiliated Workers Union. The Union, though which the9706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] petition has been filed is also a signatory to this settlement. This Settlement, as it discloses was signed between the parties in a dispute raised and under intervention of Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). Section 18 of the Act requires to be reproduced in this respect and is being reproduced as follows –

"18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.—

(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course

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

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable shall

be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act 3[or an arbitration

award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of section 10A or

(4) an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be

binding on—

(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;

(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the

Board, arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the

opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;

(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or

assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;

(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who

were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the

dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in

that establishment or part."

Hence, according to Section 18 of the Act the settlement is binding on the Applicant Workmen also, who are members of the Union which is signatory to the settlement. Terms of the settlement can be altered by way of another settlement only. The applicants were at liberty to get the settlement set aside on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation or coercion before proper forum. As regards this Tribunal, granting the relief claimed will be altering the terms of settlement which is not possible in law.

Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the basis of the above discussion and findings. The applicant side is

held entitled to no relief.

AWARD

Holding action of the Management of NMDC Ltd., Kirandul in considering all the components of wage

revision, maintained equilibrium while revising the pay of their employees in the year 2007, 2012 & 2017 and by

not adding the Minimum Guarantee Benefit(MGB) @ 23% to certain group of employees i.e. 18 nos of Electrician,

13 no. of Assistant Grade and 12 Hospital staff (list attached), as raised by All India NMDC workers Federation

Union is just and proper, the Applicant workmen are held entitled to no relief.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 17.07.2026 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1890.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चैनई के पंचाट (ं12/2018) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12012/17/2018-आईआर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9707

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2026

S.O. 1890.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 12/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/17/2018–IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

ID No. 12/2018

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 22-06-2026

Sh. N. Ramasamy,

No.58/30, Yerruthikara Street,

Nagapattinum,

Karaikal – 609 602. : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Karaikal Main Branch,

Karaikal – 609 602 : 2nd Party / Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner                         :        M/s R. Esaki Raja, Adv
For the 2nd Party / Respondent                       :        M/s S. Makesh, Adv

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/17/2018-IR(B-I) dated 26.09.2018 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management State Bank of India, Branch Office, Karaikal, in terminating the service of Shri N. Ramasamy w.e.f. May,2017 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned Workman is entitled?

ID 12/2018

The claim and counter were filed by the respective parties. The case was listed for the filling proof affidavit of WW1 on 28.08.2023, but neither the petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up, resulting in further adjournments up to 29.06.2026.

On going through the order sheets as discussed above, it is crystal clear that despite of sufficient opportunities though made in favour of the Petitioner, there has been no progress in the proceeding was noticed for a substantial period almost approaching 3 years. Since the Petitioner chose not ready to give evidence or file a proof affidavit and hereby withheld to come to dock to prove his case. This necessarily seeks the Petitioner has got no interest to proceed with the case. Accordingly, the case was reserved for Final Order as liable for dismissal for default.

In the fact and circumstance, it is held that that there exists, no dispute for adjudication in consonance to the reference.

In the result, the case stands dismissed for default.

An Award is passed accordingly.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer9708 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1891.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चैनई के पंचाट (29/2016) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-183]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2026

S.O. 1891.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai 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)-183]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Date: 10-07-2026

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No.29/2016

BETWEEN

Shri K.Rajendran

#1/126, New Street,

Arumpanur Post

Madurai Agriculture College (SO)

Madurai-625 104. : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. State Bank of India

Rep. by its Deputy General Manager(B&O),

Human Resources Section, Net Work II

Administrative Office,

Madurai Cluster , Maduram Complex,

No.2 Dr.Ambedkar Road,

Madurai-600 002.

2. Regional Manager, RBO I

State Bank of India,

Disciplinary Proceedings Cell,

Net Work II

Administrative Office,

Madurai Cluster , Maduram Complex,

No.2 Dr.Ambedkar Road,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9709

Madurai-600 002.                               :       2n Party/Respondents
 Appearance:
 For the 1st Party/ Petitioner        :        M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates
 For the 2nd Party/Respondents        :        M/s. S.Makesh, Advocates

:

**********

This claim petition has been filed by the Petitioner u/s.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly seeking the relief to set aside the order of the 1st Respondent dated 07.08.2015 rejecting the appeal and the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 09.05.2015 imposing punishment of dismissal without notice as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to pay back wages and other attendant benefits to the Petitioner from 09.05.2015 to 31.05.2015 and further directed the respondent to pay all terminal benefits such as pension, arrears of pension, gratuity, provident fund, encashment of leave etc. to the Petitioner as if he retired in normal course on 31.05.2015.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. As per the claim petition, the Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent Bank during the year 1978. While he was working as Senior Assistant in administrative office of the Respondent Bank at Madurai, he was transferred to Lady Doak College branch. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition and obtained interim stay against the transfer order. The supervisor officers have taken a stand that since the Petitioner had been relieved it is not possible to continue him in the transferred branch, though the Petitioner was allowed to discharge his duty but was not permitted sign the attendance register. It is further stated that the Petitioner was the Zonal Secretary of SBI SC/ST Welfare Association (Madurai Zone) as well as State SBI Ambedkar Trade Union. The Petitioner protested against the order of transfer on 11.01.2014 at about 2:30 p.m. He along with S.Mayilerinathan and R.Ramamoorthi indulged in unauthorised sit-in-dharna, which lasted till 11:00 a.m. on 12.01.2014. Though, the Chief Manager (HR) along with other officials instructed the Petitioner and two other employees mentioned above to leave the place and not indulge in disorderly conduct. But the Petitioner and other two employees continued to hold sit-in-dharna in the administrative office and demanded the production of attendance register of the office. The Respondent lodged a criminal complaint to the police authorities on 12.01.2014 mentioning that the incident portrayed the image of the bank poorly in the eyes of general public and customers and it was published in the Tamil newspaper dinamalar and the private television channel Pudhiya Thalaimurai. This incident caused loss of image and reputation to the respondent Bank. So the Petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 21.03.2014 and the Petitioner submitted explanation which was not found satisfactory and the domestic enquiry was conducted. The Petitioner before this Tribunal challenged the validity of domestic enquiry and this Tribunal vide its order dated 23.11.2021 held that enquiry conducted by the Respondent Bank against the Petitioner was not perverse and conducted properly by adopting the doctrine of natural justice.

3. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report dated 13.02.2015 and the same was forwarded by the 2nd Respondent along with letter dated 24.02.2015 and sought for comments of the Petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer to the effect that all the charges leveled against the Petitioner are proved.

4. The Petitioner challenged the enquiry proceedings. The punishment awarded to the Petitioner was challenged on the following grounds:-

(i) Enquiry notice was not sent to the Petitioner;

(ii) Enquiry was conducted in the absence of the Petitioner;

(iii) Enquiry was conducted in a hurried manner and unusually it was conducted after 9.00 pm

(iv) Deposition of management witnesses was recorded in the absence of Petitioner and his defence representative.

(v) 44 documents were marked in the absence of Petitioner and the Petitioner was not given opportunity to question the validity, genuineness and admissibility of documents.

(vi) After examining the management witnesses, the enquiry was closed.

(vii) The Petitioner made request for reopening of enquiry. The Respondent had hurriedly conducted enquiry by examining 13 witnesses.

(viii) Without even giving notice to the Petitioner.

(ix) The Presiding Officer had brought 5 prosecution witnesses for cross examination in the absence of the Petitioner and the adjournment petition was turned down.

(x) The enquiry was concluded ex-parte.

(xi) The Petitioner was on sick leave.

(xii) The enquiry was closed at the stage PW3 cross examining being half way.

(xiii) The finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and contrary to evidence on record.

(xiv) Punishmemt of dismissal was awarded without notice.

(xv) Extreme punishment was imposed when the Petitioner was about to retire on superannuation i.e., 30.05.2015.

(xvi) The Respondent Bank started its victimization first transferred the Petitioner from Zonal Office branch to Lady Doak College branch

(xvii) In spite of the order of the High Court Respondent Bank had been dilly dallying the issue which resulted in the Respondent Bank making the Petitioner to wait on 11.01.2014 from 02.30 pm onwards and ultimately, the Petitioner had to be in the bank till 12.01.2014 at 11.00 am Sunday.

5. In reply statement, the Respondent stated that as per administrative exigencies, periodical transfer of the employees are carried out in the Respondent Bank and the Petitioner, Senior Assistant transferred from administrative office to nearby branch situated at Lady Doak College branch, Madurai. The Petitioner protested against the order "sit in' dharna at about 2.30 pm along with S.Mayilerinathan and R.Ramamoorthi. Though the Chief Manager along with other officials inspected the Petitioner and two employees to leave the place and not to indulge in disorderly conduct, but the Petitioner and two other employees continued to hold sit in dharna in the administrative office. The Petitioner along with his colleagues during sit in dharna indecent manner demanding production of attendance register relating to administrative office from the officials so as to enable the Petitioner to sign the attendance register. He abetted every staff to participate in the dharna . The Petitioner sought clarification in the order of transfer and it was otherwise furnished to him. The Petitioner along with his two other colleagues repeatedly pressurized and demanded modification in the written clarification provided to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's act resulted in detention of officials in the office premises situated at administrative office from 02.30 pm on 11.01.2014 till 11.00 am next day 12.01.2014. This disorderly behaviour of the Petitioner forced the Respondent to lodge criminal complaint on 12.01.2014 . This incident portrayed the image of the Petitioner in the eye of general public and customers. This incident was published in Dinamalar newspaper and TV channel Pudhiya Thalaimurai also aired about the incident. This caused loss of image and reputation to the bank.

6. As the explanation submitted by the Petitioner was not satisfactory, domestic enquiry was conducted. The Petitioner was represented by defence representative in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report holding that Petitioner was guilty of charges levelled against him and a copy of enquiry report was furnished to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's submission was not found satisfactory, therefore, notice proposing punishment was issued to the Petitioner and required him to attend the personal hearing. Since the explanation of the Petitioner was not found satisfactory vide order dated 09.05.2015, he was dismissed from service and the appeal filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed on 07.08.2015.

7. Before this Tribunal, the Petitioner challenged the validity of domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent Bank on the preliminary issue. The Tribunal vide its order dated 23.11.2021 held that the enquiry was conducted by the Respondent Bank against the Petitioner in a fair and proper manner by following the principles of natural justice and hence, decided the preliminary issue against the Petitioner.

Witnesses Examined:

For the First Party Petitioner : None

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side: Nil

On behalf of Respondent/Management : NIL

8. Heard the learned counsels appearing for either side and perused the records.

9. Now I have to decide proportionality of the punishment . It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that one Shri A.Ramamoorthi was also charged and awarded punishment of dismissal from service. Shri A.Ramamoorthi filed industrial dispute before this Tribunal and Tribunal modified the punishment that reduction of pay to next lower stage and that award was considered as justified by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.24701 of 2007 vide its order dated 19.10.2022.

10. It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that one another co-employee of the Petitioner namely Shri S.Mayilerinathan has also filed Writ Petition No.9044 of 2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble Court set aside the order of dismissal and awarded the same punishment as was parity to the case of Shri A.Ramamoorthi i.e,, to bring down to next lower stage in the scale of pay.

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the case of the Petitioner is similar and hence same punishment must be awarded to the Petitioner by this Tribunal by applying the doctrine of parity.

12. It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the benefit granted to other co- employees namely S.Mayilerinathan and R.Ramamoorthi cannot be awarded in favour of the Petitioner, as this plea was neither raised nor argued previously. It is also argued that the Petitioner was the main delinquent employee and other two co-employees were supported the cause of the Petitioner. Therefore, there is no parity among the Petitioner and other co-workers.

13. On perusal of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.24701 of 2017 dated 19.10.2022, it appears that the Hon'ble Court upheld the findings of this Tribunal. The relevant paragraph of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court is as under:-

"20. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent drew the attention of this Court with reference to the findings of the Labour Court and it is relevant to extract paragraphs 31 and 32 of the impugned award, which reads as under:

"31. Was there a sit-in Dharna as alleged in the Charge Sheet? What is the evidence available in this respect? In his statement marked as PEX-1 Sajith Krishnan does not mention about the sit-in Dharna. What he has stated is that even after the office hours the three employees including the petitioner were not willing to move out from the lobby. He has also stated that the efforts to convince the three people started in the evening and continued till the next day. During his examination what he has stated is that the three were sitting in DGM's lobby even after office hours and the officials were trying to convince them to leave the office. Witness Shanmugham has stated in his statement marked as PEX-2 that the petitioner was part of sit-in Dharna. However, what is seen from the statement of this witness itself is that the petitioner and the other two were moving from place to place inside the office either on their own or at the instance of the superior Officers. Rajendran was frequently going outside and talking over his mobile phone. While Rajendran was speaking with this witness the petitioner and Mylerinathan were standing at the western side of the wall in the cabin. Rajendran himself was sitting before him. As per PEX-3, the statement given by Karthikeya Venkatesan there is no reference to a Dharna by the petitioner and others. What he has stated is that while himself and others were preparing to leave the office Rajendran the petitioner and the other were sitting in the DGM Secretariat. However, during his examination when a leading question was put to him he has stated that Dharna was held by Rajendran along with the petitioner and another. As seen from PEX-4 the statement given by Kumaravelu, Rajendran had approached him by 1030 AM or 1100 AM. Rajendran tried to give a letter to Kumaravelu but he was informed that the matter does not come under his duties. He has left the cabin and he had come back by 0230 PM accompanied by two persons. The three had been sitting in his office for half an hour. When he went out for lunch they also left. Later he had seen them sitting outside DGM's room. As could be seen in PEX-5 the statement given by Chidambara Jeevanandham, Rajendra was sitting in his own seat upto the lunch time. He does not state what happened subsequently. As seen from PEX-6 given by Mahalingam, the Deputy Manager Rajendran accompanied by the petitioner and Mylerinathan had approached by 0200 PM requesting to meet the DGM. Since DGM was not available the three went away and came back by 0330 PM to his room. When DGM came back by 0430 PM he asked the three to leave the office. He has further stated in his statement though the petitioner and another had been accompanying Rajendran the two did not speak anything. But they were waiting in his room till 0930 PM. The HR Section Officers had arranged dinner for all including the petitioner and Mylerinathan. When the Deputy Manager told the three that he wanted to lock his room they left the room. Witnesses Senthil Kumar and Samiuddeen Hussain also do not refer to Dharna in their respective statements.

32. What could be seen from the statements and evidence is that on the basis of demand of

Rajendran to permit him to sign the Attendance Register or to deliver a letter to him based on

the High Court order hectic negotiations were being held between Rajendran and the Officers

and they were trying to solve the problem. A Dharna in its strict sense does not seem to have

occurred in the office on the day. On the other hand, there seems to have been persuasion on the

part of the Rajendran to convince the Officers about his right to join duty and the attempt of the

Officers to convince him otherwise."

14. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Dharna was not established as per the statement of the Security Officer Mr. Sajith Krishnan, the protest alone was established. Thus, the punishment of removal was considered as excessive by the Labour Court and accordingly, the modified punishment of reduction of pay to next lower stage was imposed.

15. The Hon'ble High Court further held on the point of modification of punishment imposed by the Labour Court to that of reduction of pay to next lower stage is justified and there is no perversity and held as under:-

"37. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in forming an opinion that the writ petitioners have not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the Award dated 30.12.2016 passed in I.D.No.9 of 2016 and consequently, the award of the Labour Court stands confirmed, with the following directions:

(a) The 2nd respondent / employee is not entitled for any back wages as the principles of 'no work no pay' would be applicable.

(b) The 2nd respondent / employee is entitled for continuity of service.

(c) The petitioner / Management is at liberty to transfer the 2nd respondent / employee to the transferred branch at Lady Doak College, Madurai or to any other branch in Madurai District for the remaining period of services, enabling him to realise the importance of the public services in the interest of public at large."

16. On perusal of judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.9044 of 2023 dated 04.10.2023 in S.Mayilerinathan Vs. Deputy General Manager, SBI & Others, it appears that the Hon'ble High Court applied doctrine of parity and observed as under:-

"14. In normal circumstances, I would have relegated the petitioner to move the Tribunal. But when

in the case of an identically placed individual the order of dismissal has been set aside and

reinstatement was ordered, there is no reason to treat the petitioner differently.

15. If I relegate the petitioner to go before the Tribunal, it would definitely take quite a few years for

the issue to get decided. The petitioner is left with one year to reach the age of superannuation. He is

said to be suffering from Cancer. It is for this reason I propose to apply the doctrine of parity. Even

otherwise the case of the petitioner is on par with that of Ramamoorthy. The petitioner had already

given up his claim for back wages. In the case of Ramamoorthy also, back wages were denied. In this

view of the matter, this writ petition is also disposed of on the same lines as that of W.P.No.24701 of

2017.

16. The order of dismissal is set aside. The petitioner will not be entitled for back wages from the

date of dismissal till date. The petitioner will be entitled to continuity of service. The petitioner is

brought down to the next lower stage in the scale of pay. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed."

17. Now, I have to consider whether doctrine of parity is applicable to the case of the Petitioner. The doctrine of parity and disciplinary matters may be applied, if the employee is found guilty of similar misconduct . Therefore ,all of first, I have to consider the facts regarding the identity of misconduct :-

I. Identity of Misconduct:-

The Petitioner was transferred to Lady Doak College branch. He filed Writ Petition and obtained interim stay of the transfer order. He filed Writ Petition and as per direction passed by the Writ Court, he was allowed to discharge his duty but was not permitted to sign the attendance register. It was the Petitioner who sit in agitation and other two co-employees supported him. After considering the above facts, in my view, identity of charge is not same in the case of the Petitioner.

II. Similarity of Circumstances:

The Petitioner sit in dharna and other co-workmen supported him. Had the Petitioner not sit in agitation, there was no occasion to other co-employees to support him by sit in agitation with him. Therefore, there is no similar case of such circumstances.

III. Role of each employees:-

As per discussion above, this fact is established that role of the Petitioner was aggravated in comparison to other two co-employees. Therefore, the doctrine of parity is not applicable or permissible in the case of the Petitioner. As per doctrine of parity, it requires equal treatment of equals, not identical punishment in every case.

18. As per circumstances of this case, the Petitioner was not similarly placed as was his co-employees.Therefore, doctrine of parity in awarding punishment is not applicable to the case of Petitioner.

19. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that as per section 36AD of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949-

(i) no person shall obstruct any person from lawfully entering or leaving the office or place of banking company or from carrying on any business there;

(ii) no person holding within the office or place of business of any banking company, any demonstration which is violent of which prevents or calculated to prevent the transaction of normal business by the banking company.

He further argued that Petitioner has committed misconduct in violation of rules and regulations of banking company and the Petitioner obstructed to functioning of the bank, which is prohibited u/s.36AD of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

20. While deciding the Writ Petition No.24701 of 2017 dated 19.10.2022 in DGM, SBI Vs. A.Ramamoorthi, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held as under:-

"What could be seen from the statements and evidence is that on the basis of demand of Rajendran to permit

him to sign the Attendance Register or to deliver a letter to him based on the High Court order hectic

negotiations were being held between Rajendran and the Officers and they were trying to solve the problem.

A Dharna in its strict sense does not seem to have occurred in the office on the day. On the other hand, there

seems to have been persuasion on the part of the Rajendran to convince the Officers about his right to join

duty and the attempt of the Officers to convince him otherwise."

21. Since the above findings relate to the same incident that was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, there is no occasion to give separate finding on the point of nature of demonstration carried out by the Petitioner along with his two co-employees. Therefore, this demonstration was not in violation of provisions of section 36AD of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and hence, the punishment of dismissal from service is not proper and it is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the Petitioner.

22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent relied on the case law in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others (1995) SCC (6) 749, whereby it was held that misconduct is a forbidden act and misconduct in office is defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by public officer by which right of a party have been affected. But one has to consider the factual position in the case on hand. The Petitioner was transferred to another branch . He challenged the order of transfer before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which granted order of status quo in favour of the Petitioner . Therefore, under the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the Petitioner tried to contribute his service at the Administrative Office branch from where he was transferred to another branch situated at Lady Doak College. This situation mitigates aggravated form of misconduct.

23. The learned counsel for the Respondent further relied on the case law in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. P.O., Labour court Puducherry. In this case, charges framed against the workmen were:

(i) Hurling Abusive language against immediate superior executive who was in-charge of supervision of 120 workmen;

(ii) Assaulting same executive by grabbing him by collar front of the shirt

In such situation, the Hon'ble Court held that punishment imposed is not disproportionate. The facts of this case is different from the case of the Petitioner in hand. In the present case on hand, there is no allegation of abusing any superior or assaulting any superior on the part of the Petitioner.

24. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowered the Tribunal to substitute the order of dismissal with another punishment that may include the order of compulsory retirement. In the present case on hand, the Petitioner indulged in sit in dharna as already held by this Tribunal in the case of Shri S.Mayilerinathan and that was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.90444 of 2023 that though the misconduct is proved but punishment of dismissal is excessively harsh. The employee had a long unblemished service record . There is no loss of confidence of such a degree that continuity of service becomes impossible. This misconduct does not involve grave moral turpitude or serious dishonesty there is mitigating circumstances that reacted with the request to comply with the order of the High Court .

25. This fact is already discussed that the Petitioner is not entitled to get parity of punishment as awarded to the other two co-employees. But, as per discussion above, the Petitioner is entitled to get substitute the punishment of dismissal from service with compulsory retirement from service with all terminal benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment etc. u/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but not entitled for back wages as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the cases of Shri S.Mayilerinathan and Shri A.Ramamoorthi.

AWARD

The claim petition filed by the Petitioner is admitted upto the limited extent. The order of punishment of dismissal passed by the Respondent Bank is set aside. The said punishment is substituted with the compulsory retirement from service u/s.11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner is entitled to get payment of all retiral benefits such as gratuity, PF, leave encashment etc. but not entitled to get back wages. The Respondent Bank is directed to comply with order within two months after the publication of this Award.

Ordered accordingly.

Record be consigned to the record room.

Place : CHENNAI SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

Date : 10.07.2026

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1892.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स माँ इंजीनियरिग; मेसर्स रुंगटा माइन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और नॉर्थ उड़ीसा वर्क र्स यूनियन के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 20/2011) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-26011/1/2010-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1892.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 20/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Maa Engineering; M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. and North Orissa Workers Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-26011/1/2010–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 20/2011

Date of Passing Order – 31st July, 2026

Between :-

The Manging Director,

M/s. Maa Engineering,

Contractor, Jajang Iron Mines,

M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd., Jajang,

At./Po.- Joda, Dist. Keonjhar.

… 1st Party-Management.

(And)

The General Secretary,

North Orissa Workers Union,

HO, Orampara, Rourkela-769 012

… 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None. … For the 1st Party-Management.

Shri R.K. Pati, Secretary. … For the 2nd Party-Union.

ORDER

In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-26011/1/2010 – IR(M), dated 08.03.2011 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the following schedule:-

"Whether the demand of the Union as per Annexure 'A' is justified against the contractor/employer? What relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?"

2. In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to each of the Managements involved in the dispute.

3. As per the direction in the schedule of reference the 2nd Party-Union had appeared and filed statement of claim on 02.05.2011 and made a prayer to hold the demand of the Union justified and the direct the Management to pay the wages and other allowances as demanded by the Union with effect from 01.10.2008.

4. After filing of the statement of claim before this Tribunal, notice was issued to the Management for appearance but the Management neither appeared nor filed its written statement. As the Management did not appear in this case, so it was made exparte on 28.03.2016.

5. While the matter stood thus, the Auth. Representative of the 2nd Party-Union on 22.04.2025 filed a petition with a prayer that the workmen of this case are not interested to proceed further, so, a no-dispute order may be passed.

6. Now the 2nd Party-Union is not interested in contesting the case, so it appears that the 2nd Party-Union has lost interest in this case. Hence, no claim order is passed by this Tribunal.

7. Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

8. Office is directed to consign the case record to record room.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1893.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स एक्साइड लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कं पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री अशोक कु मार सिह के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 65/2022) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-137]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9716 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1893.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 65/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Exide Life Insurance Company Limited and Shri Ashok Kumar Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-137]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ID Case No. 65 of 2022

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S (Retd.)

Between:-

Shri Ashok Kumar Singh S/O Shri Ram Chandra Singh, Tulsi Nagar, Kabir Nagar, Distt. Varanasi(UP)

….…………………….Workman

AND

1. The Branch Manager, Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, D-58/19-A/4, First Floor, Sigra, Varanasi-221010.

2. The Regional Head, M/s Excide Life Insurance Company Ltd., 2-Sardar Patel Marg, Nawab Yusuf Road, LDA Centre, Civil Lines, Prayagraj-211001.

3. The Company Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer, Excide Life Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, J.P. Techno Park, No.3/1, Millers Road, Bengaluru-560001

.……………………Management

AWARD

22.07.2026

Office of the Dy. chief labour commissioner (central), vide order no. K-10/3-10/2022-IR dated 23.08.2022 has referred the industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication

This award arises in response to the reference made by the Office of the DY. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The said Tribunal shall give its award within a period of three months.The Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The Reference is stated as follows:-

"Whether the action of management of Exide Life Insurance Company Limited in terminating the

services of Shri Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Ram Chandra Singh, ADM w.e.f. 13.05.2020, is Legal and justified ? If

not, to What relief the concerned workman is entitle to and from which date?"

After receiving the reference the Tribunal issued notice on 25.08.2022 and fixed date for filling claim statement for 23.09.2022. On Perusal of the record it is found out the worker failed to file claim statement on fixed date. After that the workman was given several opportunities for filing claim statement by fixing dates such as 01.11.2022. 18.11.2022 06.01.2023, 17.02.2023, 24.03.2023,19.05.2023, 18.08.2023, 12.10.2023, 27.11.2023, 18.03.2024, 06.05.2024, 31.05.2024, 14.08.2024, 07.11.2024, 20.12.2024, 24.01.2025, 21.03.2025, 16.06.2025, 18.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 10.10.2025, 05.12.2025, 02.03.2026. On date 25.05.2026 re-send notice to Applicant for filling claim statement on the next date 22.07.2026. But Applicant is not present and not File any Claim Statement by him Respondent is present. Even after all these opportunities the workman failed to file claim statement.

O.P. is present and file a application today.

As claimant workman failed to file claim statement despite several opportunities being given to him on 22.07.2026 the case was reserved for final award.

On perusal of record it is found that claimant failed to submit claim statement being provided several opportunities. Hence in given circumstances it is presumable that claimant workman is not interested in contesting the Industrial dispute.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of 'NIL' award.

Answered Accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 22.07.2026 RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1894.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स एक्साइड लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कं पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री अनिल कु मार तिवारी के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 66/2022) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-138]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 66/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Exide Life Insurance Company Limited and Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-138]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ID Case No. 66 of 2022

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S (Retd.)

Between:-

Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari S/O Late Tribhuvan Nath Tiwari, D-54/5, Laxmi Kund

Varanasi-221001

….…………………….Workman

AND

1. The Branch Manager, Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, D-58/19-A/4, First Floor, Sigra, Varanasi-221010.

2. The Regional Head, M/s Excide Life Insurance Company Ltd., 2-Sardar Patel Marg, Nawab Yusuf Road, LDA Centre, Civil Lines, Prayagraj-211001.

3. The Company Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer, Excide Life Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, J.P. Techno Park, No.3/1, Millers Road, Bengaluru-560001

.……………………Management

AWARD

22.07.2026

Office of the Dy. chief labour commissioner (central), vide order no. K-10/3-11/2022-IR dated 23.08.2022 has referred the industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication

This award arises in response to the reference made by the Office of the DY. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The said Tribunal shall give its award within a period of three months.The Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) hereby refers9718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The Reference is stated as follows:-

"Whether the action of management of Exide Life Insurance Company Limited in terminating the

services of Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari S/O Late Tribhuvan Nath Tiwari, ADM w.e.f. 13.05.2020, is Legal and justified

? If not, to What relief the concerned workman is entitle to and from which date?"

After receiving the reference the Tribunal issued notice on 25.08.2022 and fixed date for filling claim statement for 23.09.2022. On Perusal of the record it is found out the worker failed to file claim statement on fixed date. After that the workman was given several opportunities for filing claim statement by fixing dates such as 01.11.2022. 18.11.2022 06.01.2023, 17.02.2023, 24.03.2023,19.05.2023, 18.08.2023, 12.10.2023, 27.11.2023, 18.03.2024, 06.05.2024, 31.05.2024, 14.08.2024, 07.11.2024, 20.12.2024, 24.01.2025, 21.03.2025, 16.06.2025, 18.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 10.10.2025, 05.12.2025, 02.03.2026. On date 25.05.2026 re-send notice to the Applicant for filling claim statement on the next date 22.07.2026. But Applicant is not present and not file any claim statement by him Respondent is Present. Even after all these opportunities the workman failed to file claim statement.

As claimant workman failed to file claim statement despite several opportunities being given to him on 22.07.2026 the case was reserved for final award.

O.P. is present and file a application today.

On perusal of record it is found that claimant failed to submit claim statement being provided several opportunities. Hence in given circumstances it is presumable that claimant workman is not interested in contesting the Industrial dispute.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of 'NIL' award.

Answered Accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 22.07.2026 RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1895.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार गेल (इंडिया) लिमिटेड; मेसर्स वासु के मिकल्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री सुनील कु मार कठेरिया के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 48/2021) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-139]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 48/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to GAIL (India) Limited; M/s Vasu Chemicals and Shri Sunil Kumar Katheriya which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-139]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

ID Case No. 48 of 2021

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S (Retd.)

Between:-

Shri Sunil Kumar Katheriya S/O Late Ramji Katheria, Village jamuhan, Post Diviyapur, Distt. Auraiya. (U.P.) ……………Workman[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9719 AND

1. The Chief General Manager(D/S) & Factory Manager,

GAIL (India) Limited, Village Dibiyapur, Post Pata, Distt: Auraiya (UP)-206244

2. M/s Vasu Chemicals, Vasu Centre,

Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400059. …………………Management

AWARD

21.07.2026

Office of the Dy. chief labour commissioner (central), vide order no. No.K-10/2-7/2021-IR dated 22.10.2021 has referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

This award arises in response to the reference made by the Office of the DY. Chief Labour Commissioner(Central) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) on the Central

Government and Delegated to the undersigned in pursuance of the Notifications of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub- Section (ii) vide S.O 1262 (E) and 1263(E) both dated 17.03.2023 the Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The Reference is stated as follows:-

"Whether the action of management of Gail(India) Limited, Auraiya in terminating the services of Shri

Sunil Kumar Katheriya S/O Shri Ramji Katheriya, Operator w.e.f. 01.09.2020 who was engaged through

contractor M/s Vasu Chemical, is Legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from

which date?"

The averments of the claimant workman may be summarized as follows:-

Claimant workman stated that he worked as helper in Comon Bata Solutions till 2014. He was promoted to the post of operator on 18.12.2018 in M/s Vasu Chemicals and worked till 30.08.2020. on 01.09.2020 he was terminated from the O.P management orally. No prior notice was served to him before his termination. It is claimed by claimant workman that his work was satisfactory and he rendered his service with full honesty and dedication. No chargesheet nor notice was ever served to him during period of his service. It is alleged by claimant workman he was forced/compelled by senior officials of the management to wrote his resignation and meagre payment of money was made to him in return. Even the reply of chargesheet which was served to him was written as per the dictation of the officials of the management which is against the law of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further alleged by claimant workman that he was not given any opportunity to represent himself or put his side before the management. At last, he prayed that he should be reinstated with back wage and any other benefits which deem fits in the eye of the Tribunal.

The averments of the O.P management may be summarized as follows:-

The Gail (India), Limited for the period from 10.12.2018 to 09.12.2020 has taken the services of Mr. Suneel Kumar. At the time of engagement of Shri Sunil Kumar he was clearly told that his services are purely casual nature for the aforesaid contract work, and can be terminated at any time. Shri Sunil Kumar agreed for the same as such he was engaged by us. That the work and conduct of Shri Sunil Kumar was very bad that the applicant Shri Sunil Kumar was working as operator in one of critical plant and he was found to have very little knowledge of handling the equipment of the plants since during the contract we have observed frequent incidents of misbehaviour and disobedience by him. His work and conduct were not of an employee. Therefore his presence in the plant was dangerous. That Shri Sunil Kumar has filed a complaint alleging his termination before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central, Kanpur during the course of conciliation proceeding advised that we should pay a sum of Rs. 57690/- to Sunil Kumar Katheria towards Notice Pay, Retrenchment compensation, bonus, P.L. Encashment etc. in full & final settlement of his claim then his claim would be finally settled to which Shri Sunil Kumar agreed therefore we have paid him the aforesaid amount of Rs. 57690/- to his account through RTGS. It is submitted that Shri Sunil Kumar, who was working as Operator in one of the critical plant, was found to have very little knowledge of handling the equipments of plant. Since, start of the work, we have observed frequent incidents of misbehaviour and disobedience by him. On 03.07.2019, he had misbehaved with our Dy. Site Incharge for which he had submitted an apology letter and assured our Site Management that if he repeats such behaviour in future, his services can be terminated. On 28.08.2020, it was found that Shri Sunil Kumar has not checked the necessary work for proper operation of cooling tower (CT-03) plant and he was talking on mobile phone sitting in the control room and not near the CT-03. Shri Sunil Kumar is well aware that9720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] mobile phones are totally banned by the management of GAIL in plant area. Mr. Sunil Kumar was using his mobile in the control room frequently, which is very dangerous and could lead to major accident. This violation was brought to the notice of Gail authorities. The above incident was viewed very seriously by GAIL management and our site management. The above incidents are evidence of misbehavior and negligence of Mr. Suneel Kumar. It is submitted an explanation was demanded from Mr. Sunil Kumar vide our letter dated. 30.08.2020 in which he was required to submit his reply within 3 days failing which, strict actions will be taken by the company. Since the applicant couldn't lead a disciplined behavior while on duty and he failed to convince the management of the company with his reply, the management decided to cease his services from the company and communicated the same to Shri. Sunil Kumar vide our letter of 04.09.2020. As we have not received any acceptance from Shri Sunil Kumar in this regard, we had once again sent the letter on 06.01.2021 by registered post. It is submitted that no resignation letter was given by Mr. Suneel Kumar. Further, Full and Final settlement of Rs. 57690/- was accepted by the applicant in the office of Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur. It is prayed by O.P management to dismiss the case holding that the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

On perusal of record it is found that claimant failed to submit claim any rejoinder, oral or documentary evidence despite being provided several opportunities. Finally one more notice was served on 09.03.2026 fixing 21.04.2026 for filling rejoinder or oral/documentary evidence in support of his claim. But claimant workman failed to appear before the Tribunal on fixed date. Finally case is reserved for final award.

Hence from above discussion it is presumable that claimant workman is not interested in contesting the Industrial dispute. Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of 'NIL' award.

Answered Accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 21.07.2026 RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1896.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

मेसर्स वीपीआर माइनिग इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री महानंद गिरी के बीच

अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 34/2025) को

जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-140]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1896.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s VPR Mining Infrastructure Private Limited and Shri Mahanand Giri which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-140]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

ID Case No. 34 of 2025

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S (Retd.)

Between:-

Shri Mahanand Giri, Chiltand Basti Village Chilkatand Post Shaktinagar,

Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh-231222,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9721

AND

1. The Director, M/s VPR Mining Infrastructure Private Limited,

D.No. 8-2-293/82/A/1259, 3rd Floor, Plot No.1259,

Lakshi Towers, Road No. 36, Jublee Hills

Hyderabad-500033 …………………Management

AWARD

13.07.2026

Office of the Dy. chief labour commissioner (central), vide order no. K-10(39)/2025-IR dated 11-09-2025 has referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

This award arises in response to the reference made by the Office of the DY. Chief Labour Commissioner(Central) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) on the Central Government and Delegated to the undersigned in pursuance of the Notifications of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) vide S.O 1262 (E) and 1263(E) both dated 17.03.2023 the Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The Reference is stated as follows:-

"Whether the termination of the service of Shri Mahanand Giri is legal and justified? if not to what relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

After receiving the reference, the Tribunal issued notice on 04.11.2025 and fixed date for filling claim statement for 15.12.2025. On Perusal of the record it is found out the worker failed to file claim statement on fixed date. After that the workman was given several opportunities for filing claim statement by fixing date 09.01.2026, 25.02.2026, 22.04.2026 and finally 13.072026.

But on 13.07.2026 at special campaign the claimant workman failed to appear before the Tribunal and file any claim statement despite given opportunity to file claim statement.

On perusal of record it is found that claimant failed to submit claim statement being provided several opportunities. Hence in given circumstances it is presumable that claimant workman is not interested in contesting the Industrial dispute.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of 'NIL' award.

Answered Accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 13.07.2026 RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1897.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स वीपीआर माइनिग इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री रणजीत मद्धेशिया के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 36/2025) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-142]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 36/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s VPR Mining Infrastructure Private Limited and Shri Ranjeet Maddhesia which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-142]

SALONI, Dy. Director9722 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

ID Case No. 36 of 2025

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S (Retd.)

Between:-

Shri Ranjeet Maddhesia, Chiltand Basti Village Chilkatand Post Shaktinagar,

Sonbhadra,

Uttar Pradesh-231222, 7237956874 ……………Workman

AND

The Director, M/s VPR Mining Infrastructure Private Limited,

D.No. 8-2-293/82/A/1259, 3rd Floor, Plot No.1259,

Lakshi Towers, Road No. 36, Jublee Hills

Hyderabad-500033 …………………Management

AWARD

13.07.2026

Office of the Dy. chief labour commissioner (central), vide order no. K-10(41)/2025-IR dated 11-09-2025 has referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

This award arises in response to the reference made by the Office of the DY. Chief Labour Commissioner(Central) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) on the Central Government and Delegated to the undersigned in pursuance of the Notifications of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) vide S.O 1262 (E) and 1263(E) both dated 17.03.2023 the Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The Reference is stated as follows:-

"Whether the termination of the service of Sh. Ranjeet Madhesia is legal and justified? If not to what

releif the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

After receiving the reference, the Tribunal issued notice on 04.11.2025 and fixed date for filling claim statement for 15.12.2025. On Perusal of the record it is found out the worker failed to file claim statement on fixed date. After that the workman was given several opportunities for filing claim statement by fixing date 09.01.2026, 25.02.2026, 22.04.2026 and finally 13.072026.

But on 13.07.2026 at special campaign the claimant workman failed to appear before the Tribunal and file any claim statement despite given opportunity to file claim statement.

On perusal of record it is found that claimant failed to submit claim statement being provided several opportunities. Hence in given circumstances it is presumable that claimant workman is not interested in contesting the Industrial dispute.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of 'NIL' award.

Answered Accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 13.07.2026 RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S (Retd.), Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9723

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1898.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स वीपीआर माइनिग इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री लव कु मार के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 39/2025) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-143]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s VPR Mining Infrastructure Private Limited and Shri Luv Kumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-143]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

ID Case No. 39 of 2025

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S (Retd.)

Between:-

Luv Kumar, Kota Basti Post Shaktinagar,

Sonbhadra,

Uttar Pradesh-231222,

7237956874 ……………Workman

AND

The Director, M/s VPR Mining Infrastructure Private Limited,

D.No. 8-2-293/82/A/1259, 3rd Floor, Plot No.1259,

Lakshi Towers, Road No. 36, Jublee Hills

Hyderabad-500033 …………………Management

AWARD

13.07.2026

Office of the Dy. chief labour commissioner (central), vide order no. K-10(43)/2025-IR dated 11-09-2025 has referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

This award arises in response to the reference made by the Office of the DY. Chief Labour Commissioner(Central) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) on the Central Government and Delegated to the undersigned in pursuance of the Notifications of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) vide S.O 1262 (E) and 1263(E) both dated 17.03.2023 the Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The Reference is stated as follows:-

"Whether the termination of the service of Sh. Luv Kumar is legal and justified? If not to what relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

After receiving the reference, the Tribunal issued notice on 04.11.2025 and fixed date for filling claim statement for 15.12.2025. On Perusal of the record it is found out the worker failed to file claim statement on fixed date. After that the workman was given several opportunities for filing claim statement by fixing date 09.01.2026, 25.02.2026, 22.04.2026 and finally 13.072026.

But on 13.07.2026 at special campaign the claimant workman failed to appear before the Tribunal and file any claim statement despite given opportunity to file claim statement.

On perusal of record it is found that claimant failed to submit claim statement being provided several opportunities. Hence in given circumstances it is presumable that claimant workman is not interested in contesting the Industrial dispute.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of 'NIL' award.

Answered Accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 13.07.2026 RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1899.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और महाराष्ट्र नवनिर्माण बीमा कर्मचारी सेना के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, मु ंबई पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 28/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19 .08. 2026 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-144]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and Maharashtra Navnirman Vima Karmachari Sena which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026–IR (M)-144]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT NO. 1,

MUMBAI

PRESENT

(JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Reference No. CGIT–1/28 of 2024

Employees in relation to the Management of

M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India … First Party

Versus

(Maharashtra Navnirman Vima Karmachari Sena) … Second Party[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9725 APPEARANCE:-

For the Management : Ms. Jyoti Panwalkar(Adv.)

For the Union/Second Party : Mr. Ravi Rattessar(Adv.)

Mumbai dated 11th June 2026

AWARD

The present Reference came to be made by the Central Government under Sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Order dated 12.09.2024 for adjudication of the following issue:

"Whether the demand of the Union Maharashtra Navnirman Vima Karmachari Sena for

regularization of 81 employees is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the employees

in question are entitled?"

The Second Party Union representing the concerned workmen filed an Application dated 29.04.2026 seeking withdrawal of the present Reference for want of prosecution. It was stated that a substantial number of the concerned workmen have already approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 10219 of 2025 seeking substantially similar reliefs and, therefore, the Union does not desire to prosecute the present industrial adjudication further.

The First Party Management opposed the said application by filing a detailed reply. It was contended that once a statutory reference is made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, neither the Union nor the workmen possess an absolute right to withdraw the Reference. It was further contended that the Tribunal is required to answer the Reference and render an Award and that a simple withdrawal ought not to be permitted. The Management also raised objections regarding multiplicity of proceedings and the pendency of the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court.

I have considered the application for withdrawal, the reply filed by the Management and the material placed on record.

It is settled that a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not in the nature of an ordinary civil suit where parties possess an unrestricted right to withdraw proceedings. Nevertheless, where the workmen themselves express their unwillingness to prosecute the industrial dispute and decline to adduce evidence in support of their claim, the Tribunal cannot compel them to pursue the Reference. In such circumstances, the Tribunal may record that the dispute is not being pressed and dispose of the Reference accordingly.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 529 held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the dispute actually espoused and referred for adjudication. Where the concerned workmen no longer seek adjudication of the dispute, the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the existing industrial dispute and grant substantive relief on its own.

Further, in National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 371 : AIR 2000 SC 469, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the Tribunal derives its jurisdiction solely from the order of reference and adjudicates only such dispute as survives between the parties.

In the present matter, the Union representing the workmen has unequivocally stated that it does not desire to prosecute the present Reference and seeks withdrawal thereof. No material has been placed before this Tribunal indicating that the concerned workmen intend to lead evidence or pursue adjudication of the demand for regularization. In the absence of prosecution by the beneficiaries of the Reference themselves, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending indefinitely.

At the same time, the contention of the Management that a formal Award is required to be passed deserves acceptance. Since the workmen have chosen not to prosecute the dispute and have failed to press their claim for9726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] adjudication, the Reference cannot be answered on merits in their favour. The appropriate course is to dispose of the Reference as not pressed and record that no adjudication on merits is possible for want of prosecution.

Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the Reference has not been prosecuted by the Second Party workmen and the Union representing them. Consequently, the claim raised in the Reference is treated as not pressed and no relief can be granted thereon.

ORDER

1. The application dated 29.04.2026 filed by the Second Party Union seeking withdrawal of the Reference is taken on record.

2. The Reference No. CGIT–1/28 of 2024 is disposed of as not pressed for want of prosecution.

3. In view of the withdrawal/non-prosecution of the dispute by the concerned workmen, no adjudication on merits of the demand for regularization is rendered.

4. Consequently, no relief is granted to the Second Party workmen under the present Reference.

5. Let a copy of this Award be forwarded to the Central Government in accordance with Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for publication.

JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1900.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और महाराष्ट्र नवनिर्माण बीमा कर्मचारी सेना के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, मु ंबई पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 01/2023) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19 .08. 2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17011/09/2022-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 01/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and Maharashtra Navnirman Vima Karmachari Sena which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. Z-17011/09/2022–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT NO. 1 AT

MUMBAI

PRESENT

(JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Reference No. CGIT-1/1 of 2023

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Jeevan Prakash, University Road,

6/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005. …Management/First Party[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9727 V/s

Mrs. Priya Mulay,

Represented through the General Secretary,

Insurance Employees Union,

567/88, Sadashiv Peth,

Western India House, Laxmi Road,

Pune – 411030. …Workman/Second Party

Mumbai dated, 27.05.2026

AWARD

1. The present industrial dispute came to be referred by the Central Government vide Order dated 11.01.2023 under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the following schedule:

"Whether action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Pune in not considering the request for

transfer posting of Mrs. Priya Mulay to Pune City Branches and discriminating against her, as raised by Insurance

Employees Union, Pune vide letter dated 15.12.2021 is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief the disputant

is entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?"

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both parties. The Applicant Employee appeared through Union Representative and filed statement/application on record.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Applicant Employee through Union filed an Application dated 18.03.2026 under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to withdraw the present reference voluntarily.

4. In the said application, it has been stated that:

* the matter has remained pending for considerable time;

* the Applicant Employee has attained the age of superannuation;

* continuation of litigation would cause personal, financial and health-related hardship;

* the Applicant Employee does not wish to prosecute the matter further and intends to withdraw the reference voluntarily.

5. The Respondent Management filed its Reply and stated that it has no objection if the present reference is withdrawn, provided such withdrawal is treated as absolute and final. The Management further denied exerting any pressure or coercion upon the Applicant Employee for withdrawal of the proceedings.

6. I have heard the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the record.

7. It is settled principle of law that where a party voluntarily seeks withdrawal of proceedings and does not intend to prosecute the dispute further, the Court/Tribunal may permit such withdrawal in the interest of justice. Reliance may be placed on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal wherein it was observed that withdrawal of proceedings without liberty ordinarily bars re-agitation of the same cause.

8. It is also well settled that industrial adjudication should not be continued unnecessarily when the workman herself expresses unwillingness to pursue the dispute. Reference may also be made to Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust regarding the principle that industrial adjudication must serve practical industrial justice and not become merely academic.

9. In the present matter, the application for withdrawal appears voluntary. The Applicant Employee has specifically stated that she does not wish to continue the proceedings further. The Respondent Management has also stated that it has no objection to withdrawal of the reference.

10. Considering the submissions of both sides and the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present reference pending.

11. Hence, the following order is passed:

ORDER

1. The Application dated 18.03.2026 filed by the Applicant Employee for withdrawal of the present Reference is hereby allowed.

2. Reference No. CGIT-1/1 of 2023 stands disposed of as withdrawn.

3. The withdrawal shall operate as final withdrawal of the present industrial dispute and no liberty is granted to institute fresh proceedings on the same cause of action.

4. No order as to costs.

JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1901.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड; मेसर्स ग्लोबल एनवायरो सिस्टम्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और हिद मज़दूर सभा के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 3/2023) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/31/2022-आई.आर (एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2026

S.O. 1901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 3/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd; M/s Global Enviro Systems and Hind Mazdoor Sabha which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.08.2026.

[No. L-30011/31/2022–IR (M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

ID No. 3/2023

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 17-07-2026

The General Secretary,

Hind Mazdoor Sabha,

Tamilnadu State Council,

Nakkeerar Arangam,

No.193/B, Railway Colony,

Gandhi Irwin Road,

Egmore, Chennai-600 008. : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

No.536, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. : 2nd Party / 1st Respondent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9729

2.  M/s Global Enviro Systems,
     No.C.246, Kandasamy Salai,
    Periyar Nagar,
    Chennai-600 082.                      :        2nd Party / 2nd Respondent
3.  ION Exchange (India) Ltd.,
    House No.42, B.N. Reddy Road,
    T.Nagar,
    Chennai-600 017.                      :        2nd Party / 3rd Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner        :        None
For the 1st to 3rd Respondents      :        None

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order No. L-33011/31/2022-IR(M), dated 10.01.2023 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

ID 3/2023

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the demand of Hind Mazdoor Sabha Union, Chennai vide letter dated 22.10.2021 raised dispute against the management of (1) M/s ION Exchange (India) Ltd., Chennai (2) M/s Global Enviro Systems, Chennai (3) Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai to rectify the pay disparity among the contract workers is proper legal justified?

If yes, is what relief the disputant is entitled and what directions, if any, is necessary in the matter?"

2. On receipt of the above reference dated 10.01.2023 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was registered as ID No. 3/2023 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to 01.05.2023. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further adjournments to 26.06.2023, 01.08.2023, 14.07.2025, 01.09.2025, 28.10.2025, 19.01.2026, 07.04.2026 and 25.05.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 10.01.2023 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 17.07.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up nor was any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf present. The claim statement was not furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunitychoose not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.

3. In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal.

4. In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government, as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.

5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.

An Award is passed accordingly.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer9730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1902.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार ंडम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री के . श्रीपति राव, एनटीपीसी मजदूर मेसर्स एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड, रामागु

यूनियन (इंटक) के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद, पंचाट (आईडी नंबर 120/2018) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. L-42011/124/2018-IR (DU)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1902.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 120/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s NTPC Ltd., Ramagundam, and Sri K. Sripathi Rao, NTPC Mazdoor Union (INTUC).

[No L-42011/124/2018-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 120/2018

Between:

Sri K. Sripathi Rao,

NPTC Mazdoor Union (INTUC),

Jyothinagar, Peddapalli,

Ramagundam (A.P.) – 505215 ......Petitioner AND

The Executive Director,

M/s NTPC Ltd., Ramagundam Union,

Jyothinagar, Peddapalli,

Ramagundam (A.P.) – 505215 …… Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: M/s. G. Sudha & G. Kausalya, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/124/2018 (IR(DU)) dated 29.10.2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of NTPC Mazdoor Union (INTUC), and their workman. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of NTPC, Ramagundam not to give representation to the members of NTPC Mazdoor Union in the Canteen Committee against the provisions of bipartite agreement (MOU of 2016) is justified? If not, what relief the union is entitled to?"[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9731 The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 120/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Notice sent to petitioner returned with endorsement "addressee left without intimation", hence returned to sender". But none present for Petitioner and no claim statement filed. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1903.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, कें द्रीय सरकार राष्ट्रीय कृ षि विस्तार प्रबंधन संस्थान (मैनेज) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री मोहम्मद इस्माइल और 12 कै जुअल लेबरर्स के बीच अनुबंध में संलग्न औद्योगिक विवाद के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (आईडी संख्या 55/2018) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल -42012/60/2017 - आई आर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1903.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 55/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management (MANAGE), and Sri Mohd. Ismail and 12 Casual Labourers.

[No. L-42012/60/2017 -IR (DU)]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 55/2018

Between:

Sri Mohd. Ismail,

C/o Mgt of National Institute of Agricultural,

Extension Manager (Manage),9732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 5000030 ......Petitioner AND

The Director General,

O/o MGT Of National Institute of Agricultural,

Extention Manager(Manage),

Rajendranagar,

Hyderabad – 500030 …… Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/60/2017 (IR(DU)) dated 29.12.2017 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of O/o Mgt of National Institute of Agricultural, and their workman. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of MANAGE ( Management of National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management an organization of Ministry of Agriculture ) by non-implementing the Officer Order 217 & 218 of 2009- 10 for 12 Casual Labourers is legal and justified? If not, what relief the casual labourers are entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 55/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1904.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

मेसर्स स्पार्क ल सविसेज; मेसर्स इंडियन इम्युनोलॉजिकल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्रीमती दीक्षितुला

माधवी के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद,

पंचाट (आईडी संख्या. 191/2025) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. L-42025/07/2026/134-IR (DU)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9733

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1904.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 191/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Sparkle Services, M/s Indian Immunologicals Limited, and Smt. Dikshitula Madhavi.

[No. L-42025/07/2026/134-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.191/2025

Between:

Smt. Dikshitula Madhavi,

H.No.5-59/4, Rangampet, Medak,

Telangana – 502381

.….Petitioner

AND

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. Sparkle Services, 105, 1st Floor,

F Block, Surya Towers, SP Road,

Secunderabad – 500003.

2. The Vice President-HR,

M/s. Indian Immunologicals Limited,

Rakshapuram, Gachibowli Post,

Hyderabad – 500032. .…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: None

For the Respondent: M/s. C. Niranjan Rao, C.N. Dilip & C. Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocates (for R1)

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. 8/31/2025-B1 dated 19.8.2025 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Sparkle Services, contractor of M/s. Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad and their workman. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of M/s. Sparkle Services, contractor of M/s. Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad in not engaging Smt. Dikshitula Madhavi is justified? If not, what relief Smt. Dikshitula Madhavi is entitled to?"

"Whether the submission of M/s. Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad in termination of Smt.

Dikshitula Madhavi is justified? If not, what relief Smt. Dikshitula Madhavi is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 191/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for filing of claim statement, no claim statement is filed by Petitioner. It seems Petitioner do not want to prosecute her case. Hence, a 'No Claim Award' is passed. Reference is ordered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 15 th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1905.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार ंडापु वेंकटेश्वर राव के मेसर्स वर्मा इंजीनियरिग; मेसर्स लार्सन एंड टुब्रो लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री गु

बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (आई डी नंबर 51/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/146- आईआर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1905.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 51/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Varma Engineering / M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited, and Sri Gundapu Venkateswara Rao.

[No. L-42025/07/2026/146-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of February, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 51/2024

Between:

Sri Gundapu Venkateswara Rao,

Reddy Kancharapalem,

Visakhapatnam, AP-530008.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. The Director, M/s Varma Engineering,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9735 65-1-190A, Near Coromondal Gate,

Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam-530011.

2. The Manager (IR),

M/s Larsen & Turbo Limited,

Ship Building Centre,

Visakhapatnam-530014.

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/32/2024-B1 dated 27.05.2024 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Varma Engineering & another and their workmen. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Sri Gundapu Venkateswara Rao for payment of retrenchment compensation by the management of M/s Varma Engineering, contract of M/s Larsen & Turbo Limited, main contractor of Ship Building Centre, Visakhapatnam over alleged illegal termination is fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 51/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. It seems petitioner don't want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in the absence of claim statement by petitioner 'Nil Award' is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 20 th day of February, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1906.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स तिरुमाला एंटरप्राइजेज; एआईसीटीई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री विचित्र कु मार परिदा के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद, पंचाट (आईडी नंबर 5/2018) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-42012/45/2017-आई आर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2026

S.O. 1906.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 5/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Tirumala Enterprises ; AICTE, and Sh. Bichitra Kumar Parida.

[No. L-42012/45/2017-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 5/2018

Between:

Sri Bichitra Kumar Parida,

S/o Bansidhar Parida,

Vill-Bimalaprasad Patana,

Po. Jankia, Dist – Khordha,

Orissa - ......Petitioner AND

1. M/s Tirumala Enterprises (Contractor),

H. No. 17-1-469/A/42/20,

Adarsh Nagar, Saidabad,

Hyderabad 500059

2. The Regional Officer,

All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE),

South Central Regional Office, JNAFU Campus,

Mahaveer Marg Tank,

Hyderabad – 500028 …… Respondents Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: M/s Ramakanth Reddy & D. Siva Prasad, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/45/2017 (IR(DU)) dated 24.10.2017 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, contractor and their workman. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

1. Whether the action of the immediate employer M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Hyderabad working in the establishment of AICTE Hyderabad in terminating the services of workman Sh. Bichitra Kumar Parida w.e.f. 2.2.17(A/N) is legal and justified?

2. Whether the claim of workman Sh. Bichitra Kumar Parida for regularization of his service in AICTE, Hyderabad is legal and justified? If not, than what relief the above said workman is entitled to and from which date?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 5/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity did not filed any claim statement. Petitioner opportunity closed. Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, in absence of claim statement 'no claim' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1907.— औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में

केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकार श्री कासूमाला बी

तुलसीराम के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औघोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औघोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम

न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (99/2003) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आई आर (बी-I)-183]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1907.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 99/2003) 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 workman Sri Kasumala B Tulsiram.

[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-183]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 1st day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 99/2003

Between:

Sri Kasumala B Tulsiram,

S/o K. Balaiah,9738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] R/o 12/243, Kapu Street,

Sullure Village, Sullurpet mandal,

Nellore District.

… Petitioner

And

The Chief General Manager,

(Personnel)

State Bank of India,

Bank Street

Hyderabad. …..Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. S. Prasada Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Kasumala B Tulsiram 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.

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

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

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

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

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

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

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

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

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

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

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1990 to 1991, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 2 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1991. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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

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

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

7. Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated 16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon'ble High court of A.P.. It is specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement9740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon'ble High court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon'ble High Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.

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

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

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

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

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

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9741 who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives".

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 31.3.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary9742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

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

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

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

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

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

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W4. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the service certificate. Ex.W2 is the absorption letter dt.18.7.92. Ex.W3 is the secondary school certificate. Ex.W4 is the caste certificate.

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

Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non- Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 dt.1.5.1998. Ex.M12 is the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998 dt.10.8.1998.

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

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

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

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

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, Sullurpet branch, in terminating the services of Workman Sri Kasumala B Tulsiram, a Messenger with effect from 1991 is justified?

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

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

Findings:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

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

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

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

26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 31.3.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 31.3.1997."

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 31.3.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 31.3.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9745 been issued to this effect that, "Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed." Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 31.3.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5 th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

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

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

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

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

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

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

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

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had

been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the

settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

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

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is

a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the

fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired

and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further

improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony

when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining

have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just

and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said

settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."

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

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

27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 1991 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 1991 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

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

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

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

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

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

erroneously .."

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

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

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

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

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

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

Ltd case, held as under:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter VA."

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from9748 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 1991.

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

"I was not sponsored by any employment exchange and did not undergo the regular process of selection before my

engagement as temporary messenger in the branch.."

"It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank in any branch."

Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 1991. Thus, the claim of the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis.

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

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 1991 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 31.3.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.

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

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

34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1991 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9749 disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

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

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

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

37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

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

"Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as

temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in

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

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

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

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

"Prior to my oral appointment in 1990 there was no notification."

…"I used to work depending upon availability of work in the branch. ….

I am not aware of the settlements between the federation and the Management. …. Further witness states, "It is true

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

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

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

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

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

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

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

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

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

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

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

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

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

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

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages.

43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44. Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired9752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

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

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

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

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

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized."

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of

the Act."

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

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

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state."

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

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

This point is answered against the Workman.

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

This Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri Kasumala B Tulsiram, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 1991 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed.

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 1st day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri Kasumala B Tulsiram MW1: Sri I.S. Appa Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1L Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of absorption letter dt.18.7.92

Ex.W3: Photocopy of secondary school certificate

Ex.W4: Photocopy of caste certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

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

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

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

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

Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995 Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.30.7.1996

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

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

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

Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

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

Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1908.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार कोएक्सियल मेंटेनेंस, बी एस एन एल, विशाखापत्तनम के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री के . नागेश्वर राव के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (ID No. 15/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल -40012/177/1993-आई आर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2026

S.O. 1908.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 15/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Divisional Engineer, Coaxial Maintenance, BSNL, Visakhapatnam, and Sri K. Nageswara Rao.

[No. L-40012/177/1993-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Deputy Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9755

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.15/2009

Between:

Sri Nageswara Rao,

C/o China Satyam,

R/o Kondanarapet,

Tuni-533401, East Godavari Dist., .….Petitioner

AND

The Divisional Engineer,

Coaxial Maintenance,

Telecom Department,

BSNL, Vishakhapatnam-530001 .…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri G. Vidya Sagar, Advocates

For the Respondent: Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/177/1993-IR(DU)(Pt.) dated 18.2.2009 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Divisional Engineer, Coaxial, Visakhapatnam and their workman. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of Divisional Engineer Coaxial, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri K. Nageswara Rao is justified? If not, too what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 15/2009 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. On the date fixed for hearing, Respondent has filed memo with contents that the present ID is pending before the Tribunal on remand back from Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad vide order dated 13.03.2008 in WPMP No. 7627/1999 for further adjudication which was in reference to payment of back wages without interfering with the order of reinstatement. Further, it is submitted that upon direction of Hon'ble High Court, orders were complied by way of reinstatement instead of wages under section 17(b) of the ID Act. Further, it is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India judgements has settled law to the effect that the casual labour is entitled to compensation and not the back wages including reinstatement. This decision has become final and given due effect to other casual labour namely (1) BSNL Vs D. Asiri Naidu in ALP (C) No: 36384/2009 (2) BSNL vs R. Kacheeru in SLP(C) No: 1870/2009. The same is applicable to the claimant in ID No: 15/2009. Further, it is submitted that the claimant has expired on 25.05.2021 and the death certificate is enclosed herewith and there is no scope for any further adjudication. Therefore, the case is closed.

3. Perused the record. In this case, Karri Nageswara Rao died on 25th May, 2021, and this Tribunal vide order dated 25th April, 2023 directed the Petitioner 's counsel to implead and substitute the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner in the claim statement as per law. However, till today no steps have been taken on behalf of Petitioner, by the counsel for substitution of LRs of the deceased workman, despite sufficient opportunities already granted. Therefore, in these circumstances, the claim statement is dismissed for non-prosecution of the order of Court and 'No claim', award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 15th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer9756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1909.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार बीएसएनएल, डबागार्डन्स, विशाखापत्तनम के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और भारतीय दूरसंचार कर्मचारी संघ (बीएसएनएल) के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (आईडी नंबर. 26/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-40011/11/2018- आई आर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2026

S.O. 1909.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 26/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to BSNL, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam, and Bharatiya Telecom Employees Union (BSNL).

[No. L-40011/11/2018-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 26/2019

Between:

The District Secretary,

Bharatiya Telecom Employees Union (BSNL),

O/o General Manager Telecom District,

BSNL, Dabagardens,

Vishakapatnam(A.P.) - 530020. ....….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

BSNL, Dabagardens,

Vishakapatnam(A.P.) – 530020 ..……Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40011/11/2018 (IR(DU)) dated 22.01.2019 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of BSNL, Dabagardens and their workman. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the claim of the Bharatiya Telecom Employees Union (BSNL) against the transfer of Non- Executive employees made by the management of BSNL, Dabagardens, Vishakhapatnam is legal and justifies? If not, what relief and directions are necessary in the case?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 26/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is fixed for Petitioner evidence. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to the Petitioner, he did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim opportunity closed. Claim of the Petitioner has not been substantiated any evidence. Hence, a No-Claim Award is passed. Reference is ordered accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 15th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1910.— औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकार श्री चीकु र्ति रामबाबू के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औघोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औघोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (116/2003) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आई आर (बी-I)-184]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1910.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 116/2003) 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 workman Sri Cheekurti Rambabu.

[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-184]

SALONI, Deputy Director9758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 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 3rd day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.116/2003

Between:

Sri Cheekurti Rambabu,

S/o Potha Raju,

Ventrapragada,

Padaparadi mandal,

Krishna Distt.

… Petitioner And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Vijayawada. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri B. Vikas, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Cheekurti Rambabu 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

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

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

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

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

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

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

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

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

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the he joined the service of the Respondent Bank as a messenger in the year 1982 and he worked upto 1.4.1997. Thereby he worked for about 15 years. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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

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

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with that it's a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under9760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

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

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

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

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

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9761 employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondent s have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

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

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondent s have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives".

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the9762 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

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

16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9763 vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon.

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

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

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

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W2. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the service certificate. Ex.W2 is the notification.

21. Though Respondent has filed counter, but the contention made in the counter is not substantiated by any evidence by the Respondent Management.

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

23. Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman.

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

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

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Workman Sri Cheekurti Rambabu, a Messenger with effect from 1.4.1997 is justified?

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

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

Findings:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

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

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

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

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

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997."

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9765 been issued to this effect that, "Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed." Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5 th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

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

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

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

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

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

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

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

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement

had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted

the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

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

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other

advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be

accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court

the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that

is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of

the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since

expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with

further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and

harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective

bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as

fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973.

The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to

costs."

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

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

27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 1.4.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 1.4.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

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

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

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

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

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

erroneously .."

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

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

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

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

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

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

Ltd case, held as under:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter VA."

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

29. The Petitioner in his chief examination has reiterated the version of the claim statement. This witness WW1was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in his cross examination witness has stated that he joined as messenger at Ventrapragada branch of State Bank of India for the first time without any written appointment order. Further, witness states that during the period 1st January 1985 to December 1987 he worked for 197 days approximately with intermittent gaps. He worked as a non-messenger for 88 days out of 197 days. Further, witness states that during the period after interview he worked from 1991 to 1997 for 610 days. Further, witness states that he stopped attending the bank service from 1997, but he was not issued any written order of removal. He did not give any representation to the bank and he has worked as an agricultural labourer. Further, witness states he was not appointed as per the recruitment selection procedure.

Thus, from the above statement of the witness in cross examination it manifests that Workman was not recruited by any selection procedure rather he had worked as a casual Workman who was engaged by the Respondent for the work intermittently for different periods. Thus, the Workman has not completed 240 days of his service in any calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination. Therefore, he has not fulfilled the condition mentioned under section 25 F of the ID Act, hence, the provision of Section 25F is not applicable to his case. Further, witness in his cross examination has admitted that he did not work continuously for 240 days in any branch, in any year and he used to work depending upon the availability of the work in the branch. Thus, in view of the statement of Petitioner witness, he does not fulfill the condition of continuous service of one year as provided under Section 25F of the Act, therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that he has been terminated from service by the Respondent in violation of the provision of Section 25F of the Act is not maintainable.

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

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

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

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

34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9769 cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

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

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

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

37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

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

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

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

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

39. As regard the regularization, the witness has stated that he do not have panel list, he is not a member of any employees federation and he do not know whether the settlements between the management and the federation will be applicable to him. Further, this witness states that, he is not aware of the settlements between the federation and management and also stated that he do not have any knowledge about the agreements speaks of the absorption in permanent position. Thus, from the above statement of the witness it manifests that he failed to prove his claim for regularization in the service of the Respondent.

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

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

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

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

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

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

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

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

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

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

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

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

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages.

43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44. Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

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

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

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

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

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized."

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd Respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of

the Act."

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

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

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state."

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

47. Thus, in view of fore gone discussion and laws laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the claim of workman of regularization in the employment of Respondent is not substantiated by the evidence of Petitioner, WW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he is not aware of any settlements and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than him was given appointment in the bank and he has no document to show that any of his juniors is continuing in service of the bank as of now. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for regularization in the employment of Respondent bank is not tenable. Further, Petitioner failed to produce any document in evidence to establish that any temporary employee junior to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9773 him is working in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled for regularization in the service of the Respondent.

This point is answered against the Petitioner Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

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

This Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri Cheekurti Rambabu, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 1.4.1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 3rd day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri Cheekurti Rambabu NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1911.— औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकार श्री च. एस. एस. सोभन बाबू के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औघोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औघोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (120/2003) प्रकाशित करती है।

[स. एल- 12025/01/2026- आई आर (बी-I)-185]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1911.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 120/2003) 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 workman Sri Ch. S. S. Sobhan Babu.

[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-185]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.120/2003

Between:

Sri Ch. S. S. Sobhan Babu,

S/o Nancharaiah,9774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Pattabipuram,

Chilakalapudi post,

Machilipatnam.

Krishna Distt.

… Petitioner

And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Vijayawada. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri B. Vikas, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Ch. S. S. Sobhan Babu 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.

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

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

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

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

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

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

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

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

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

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

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the he joined the service of the Respondent Bank as a messenger in the year 1988 and he worked upto 1.4.1997. Thereby he worked for about 9 years. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

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

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

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

7. Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated 16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon'ble High court of A.P.. It is specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon'ble High9776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon'ble High Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondent s 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.

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

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

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

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondent s have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

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

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondent s have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives".

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of9778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

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

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

17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9779 agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

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

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

20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W2. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the service certificate. Ex.W2 is the notification.

21. Though Respondent has filed counter, but the contention made in the counter is not substantiated by any evidence by the Respondent Management.

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

23. Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman.

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

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

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Workman Sri Ch. S. S. Sobhan Babu, a Messenger with effect from 1.4.1997 is justified?

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

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

Findings:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

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

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

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

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

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997."

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

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

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

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

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

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

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

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

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

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement

had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted

the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

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

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

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

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

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

27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 1.4.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 1.4.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

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

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

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

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

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

erroneously .."

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

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

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

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

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

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

Ltd case, held as under:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and

Chapter VA."

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29. The Petitioner in his chief examination has reiterated the version of the claim statement. This witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in his cross examination witness has stated that he joined as messenger at Bazar branch, Machilipatnam of State Bank of India for the first time without any written appointment order. Further, witness states that during the period 19.1.88 to 23.4.88 he worked for 77 days. His total working days are 716 days upto 1997. Further, witness states that he stopped attending the bank service from 1997, but he was not issued any written order of removal. He did not give any representation to the bank and he has worked as an agricultural labourer. Further, witness states he was not appointed as per the recruitment selection procedure.

Thus, from the above statement of the witness in cross examination it manifests that Workman was not recruited by any selection procedure rather he had worked as a casual Workman who was engaged by the Respondent9784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] for the work intermittently for different periods. Thus, the Workman has not completed 240 days of his service in any calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination. Therefore, he has not fulfilled the condition mentioned under section 25 F of the ID Act, hence, the provision of Section 25F is not applicable to his case. Further, witness in his cross examination has admitted that he did not work continuously for 240 days in any branch, in any year and he used to work depending upon the availability of the work in the branch. Thus, in view of the statement of Petitioner witness, he does not fulfill the condition of continuous service of one year as provided under Section 25F of the Act, therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that he has been terminated from service by the Respondent in violation of the provision of Section 25F of the Act is not maintainable.

30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent , I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 1.4.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 1.4.1997.

32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order.

33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order.

34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent .

35. Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9785 are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation's affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5 th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon'ble Apex Court have held:-

"Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondent s were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondent s that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondent s did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondent s, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively."

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable.

38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39. As regard the regularization, the witness has stated that he do not have panel list, he is not a member of any employees federation and he do not know whether the settlements between the management and the federation will be applicable to him. Further, this witness states that, he is not aware of the settlements between the federation and management and also stated that he do not have any knowledge about the agreements speaks of the absorption in permanent position. Thus, from the above statement of the witness it manifests that he failed to prove his claim for regularization in the service of the Respondent.

40. However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any authority.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42. In this context the reference of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

"(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages.

43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44. Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

"8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized."

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46. In view of principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

"7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review."

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon'ble High Court have held,

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd Respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of

the Act."

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

" 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state."

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman.

47. Thus, in view of fore gone discussion and laws laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the claim of workman of regularization in the employment of Respondent is not substantiated by the evidence of Petitioner, WW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he is not aware of any settlements and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than him was given appointment in the bank and he has no document to show that any of his juniors is continuing in service of the bank as of now. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for regularization in the employment of Respondent bank is not tenable. Further, Petitioner failed to produce any document in evidence to establish that any temporary employee junior to him is working in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled for regularization in the service of the Respondent.

This point is answered against the Petitioner Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

48. Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri Ch. S. S. Sobhan Babu, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 1.4.1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 3rd day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri Ch. S. S. Sobhan Babu NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1912. — औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकार श्रीमती एम. ब्रामाराम्बा के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औघोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औघोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (121/2003) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल- 12025/01/2026- आई आर (बी-I)-186]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1912.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 121/2003) 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 workman Smt. M. Bramaramba.

[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-186]

SALONI, Deputy Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.121/2003

Between:

Smt M. Bramaramba,

W/o Veeraraju,

Ventrapragada -521263.

Padadarupudi Mandal.

Krishna Distt.

… Petitioner And

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India,9790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Zonal Office,

Vijayawada. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri B. Vikas, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Smt. M. Bramaramba 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.

2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon'ble High Court vide its' judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon'ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon'ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:-

" 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondent s, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award

dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit

of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date."

Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019.

3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in her claim statement are that, the she joined the service of the Respondent Bank as a messenger in the year 1984 and she worked upto 1.4.1997. Thereby he worked for about 13 years. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel "found suitable for permanent appointment" by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.

4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.

5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank". The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".

6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent settlements thereby created reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with that it's a question of time their appointments or services would be regularized in the services of the bank. The Workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope that sooner her services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all her options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Further Workman submits that the Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated 16.8.1990. Under said circular the chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Workman aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 before Hon'ble High court of A.P.. It is specifically averred in the said writ petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. The Hon'ble High court of A.P .. by order dated 5.3.97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The Hon'ble High Court also recorded finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the Settlement. In view of the directions given by the High Court all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991, and on the basis of a settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27.10.1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the aforesaid directions given by the High Court and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, dated 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1.4.97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said9792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] action the Workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and by way of Writ Petition No.9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondent s 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Workmen therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.

8. Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre. It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice.

9. The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87, 16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90 stated in its counter affidavit that as follows:

"Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondent s have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondent s have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives".

10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore, their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9793 should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97.

12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.

13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits.

14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement.

A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.

16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider her candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon.

17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got her case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9795 the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in her a right to claim that her services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated.

19. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.

20. In order to fortify her claim Workman has examined herself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W2. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of her claim which are discussed as under:-

Ex.W1 is the service certificate. Ex.W2 is the notification.

21. Though Respondent has filed counter, but the contention made in the counter is not substantiated by any evidence by the Respondent Management.

22. Apart from afore mentioned documents, Learned Counsel for Workman has also filed a long list of various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court, which we will discuss at appropriate place in this Award.

23. Heard the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman.

24. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Learned Counsel for Petitioner following points arise for determination in the industrial dispute :-

I. Whether the 1st settlement dated 17.11.1987, 2nd settlement dated 16.7.1988, 3rd settlement dated 27.10.1988, 4th settlement dated 9.1.1991 and 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 entered into between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and also Memorandum of Understanding are binding upon both the parties?

II. Whether the action of State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Workman Smt. M. Bramaramba, a Messenger with effect from 1.4.1997 is justified?

III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by her in the claim statement?

IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

25. Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:-

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written

agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof

has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;

Section 18(1) provides as follows:-

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.

- [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal.

26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-

"We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997."

Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further, the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, "Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed." Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5 th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties.

In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ

510 AP para 414, Hon'ble Court have held:-

"4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes

Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement

was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again

entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these

settlements are under Section 18(1).

14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can

only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters

of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement

entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the

Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The

Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have

jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes

Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the

A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If

parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before

the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and

Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while

deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not."

It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.

Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding

at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel

that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,

rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the

company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in

scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement

had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted

the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.

"When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is

not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,

which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.

This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of

mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the

President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of

collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.

It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5 th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of her name in the panel and she was selected for inclusion her name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto9798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent .

27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated her services by oral order on 1.4.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined herself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 1.4.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;

(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing her oral as well as documentary evidence in support of her claim.

Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial

Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously .."

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"

"14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative

exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra

Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa

Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P)

Ltd case, held as under:

"These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has

actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to

have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service

for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that

he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year."

In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle

and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment

for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12

calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,

he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and

Chapter VA."

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that she has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

29. The Petitioner in her chief examination has reiterated the version of the claim statement. This witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in her cross examination witness has stated that she joined as messenger at Ventrapragada branch of State Bank of India for the first time without any written appointment order. Further, witness states that during the period 1.1.84 to 31/7/88 she worked for 158 days. Her total working days are 509 days after interview from 1.1.91 to 31.3.1997. Further, witness states that she stopped attending the bank service from 1997, but she was not issued any written order of removal. She did not give any representation to the bank and she has worked as an agricultural labourer. Further, witness states she was not appointed as per the recruitment selection procedure.

Thus, from the above statement of the witness in cross examination it manifests that Workman was not recruited by any selection procedure rather she had worked as a casual Workman who was engaged by the Respondent for the work intermittently for different periods. Thus, the Workman has not completed 240 days of her service in any calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination. Therefore, he has not fulfilled the condition mentioned under section 25 F of the ID Act, hence, the provision of Section 25F is not applicable to her case. Further, witness in her cross examination has admitted that she did not work continuously for 240 days in any branch, in any year and she used to work depending upon the availability of the work in the branch. Thus, in view of the statement of Petitioner witness, she does not fulfill the condition of continuous service of one year as provided under Section 25F of the Act, therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that she has been terminated from service by the Respondent in violation of the provision of Section 25F of the Act is not maintainable.

30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that she was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that9800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.

31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent , I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 1.4.1997 rather she was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove her claim that she was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as she failed to establish her plea by any oral or documentary evidence that she had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 1.4.1997.

32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order.

33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order.

34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days she had worked in the Respondent bank cannot claim any right to reinstate her into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent .

35. Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies.

36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9801 is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation's affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997.

37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same.

In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon'ble Apex Court have held:-

"Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondent s were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondent s that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondent s did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondent s, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively."

Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable.

38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms9802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list.

39. As regard the regularization, the witness has stated that she do not have panel list, she is not a member of any employees federation and she do not know whether the settlements between the management and the federation will be applicable to her. Further, this witness states that, she is not aware of the settlements between the federation and management and also stated that she do not have any knowledge about the agreements speaks of the absorption in permanent position. Thus, from the above statement of the witness it manifests that she failed to prove her claim for regularization in the service of the Respondent.

40. However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any authority.

41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim her regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days.

42. In this context the reference of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:-

"(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order

regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained

in Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of

permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not

filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary

or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;

(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are

available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of

service;

(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open

to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make

a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of

Article 14; and

(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the

ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,

with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.

Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove her claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9803 continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages.

43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.1997 has been filled up from the panel list in order of seniority and no vacancy exists or arises as on 31.3.1997 remained unfilled. Further, it is contended that as per terms of settlement the life of panel lists has been lapsed on 31.3.1997, hence, there is no occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of her seniority. It is settled law that the power to create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable.

44. Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel list. Workman witness WW1 in her cross examination has herself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list.

45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

"8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a

statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the

recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity.

9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by

reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in

absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized."

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme.

46. In view of principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has she would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman.

Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:-

In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

"7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article

14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law:

A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt

a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and

give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else

that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona

fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of

arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but

providers for control of its exercise by judicial review."

In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon'ble High Court have held,

"Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a

permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd Respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not

liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no

temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench

judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the

two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the

requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary

appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the

case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of

the Act."

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

" 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must

consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record

is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state."

In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman.

47. Thus, in view of fore gone discussion and laws laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the claim of workman of regularization in the employment of Respondent is not substantiated by the evidence of Petitioner, WW1 in her cross examination has admitted that she is not aware of any settlements and she is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than him was given appointment in the bank and she has no document to show that any of her juniors is continuing in service of the bank as of now. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for regularization in the employment of Respondent bank is not tenable. Further, Petitioner failed to produce any document in evidence to establish that any temporary employee junior to him is working in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled for regularization in the service of the Respondent.

This point is answered against the Petitioner Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

48. Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

This Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Smt. M. Bramaramba, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 1.4.1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The claim statement filed by Workman sans merit, hence, dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 6th day of July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Smt. M. Bramaramba NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9805

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1913.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (ं213/2002) प्रकाशित करती है।

[स. एल - 12012/391/2001- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1913.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 213/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/391/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Deputy Director In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 213/2002

Between:

Sri C. pamdyan,

S/o Chinniyan,

Nagalapuram (PO & West).

Chittor Distt. … Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Region II,

Tirupathi- 517501.

…..Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri K. Ratanga pani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/391/2001-IR(B.I) dated 13.02.2002, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Sri C. Pandyan, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 213/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. The perusal of the claim statement filed by the Petitioner as well as the counter of the Respondent goes to reveal that this matter pertains to the termination of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent. The Appropriate government has not referred any industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in respect of termination of Petitioner.

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Thus, in view of the above provision the Industrial Tribunal cannot decide a dispute not explicitly referred to it by the appropriate Government as it's jurisdiction under Section 10 (4) of ID Act, 1947 is confined to the specific point of dispute mentioned in the reference order and matter incidental there to. If the reference is for dismissal but the matter pertains to the termination, the Tribunal must strictly stick to the referred terms.

3. Therefore, in view of the provision contained under Section 10(4) of the I.D.Act, 1947, there is no reference of the industrial dispute regarding termination of the Petitioner for adjudication before this Tribunal. The reference of dispute herein pertain to the dismissal of the Petitioner from service. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot adjudicate the dispute in the absence of reference of termination by retrenchment of Petitioner. Thus, Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 6th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1914.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (ं66/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/502/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1914.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 66/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/502/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Deputy Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9807

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 66/2001

Between:

Smt. Ch. Kumari,

W/o Rasaiah,

C/o Nimmagadda Mark,

Guthavaripalem,

Via Vellaturu,

Guntur Dist. … Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Region II,

Labbipet,

Vijayawada -520 001. …..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/502/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.6.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Smt. Ch. Kumari, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 66/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. The perusal of the claim statement filed by the Petitioner as well as the counter of the Respondent goes to reveal that this matter pertains to the termination of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent. The Appropriate government has not referred any industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in respect of termination of Petitioner.

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Thus, in view of the above provision the Industrial Tribunal cannot decide a dispute not explicitly referred to it by the appropriate Government as it's jurisdiction under Section 10 (4) of ID Act, 1947 is confined to the specific point of dispute mentioned in the reference order and matter incidental there to. If the reference is for dismissal but the matter pertains to the termination, the Tribunal must strictly stick to the referred terms.

3. Therefore, in view of the provision contained under Section 10(4) of the I.D.Act, 1947, there is no reference of the industrial dispute regarding termination of the Petitioner for adjudication before this Tribunal. The reference of dispute herein pertain to the dismissal of the Petitioner from service. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot adjudicate the9808 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dispute in the absence of reference of termination by retrenchment of Petitioner. Thus, Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 6th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1915.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का 14)की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण–सह–श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (सन्दर्भ संख्या 11/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[स. एल.12012/247/2001-आई.आर.(बी-I)] सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1915.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID.No.11/2002) 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-12012/247/2001- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Deputy Director In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2002

Between:

Sri D. Karimulla Khan,

S/o Ahmed Ali Khan,

D.No.1-52-D,

Opp: SBI Colony,

Puttur,577583, Chittor District-. … Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Region II,

Tirupathi-517501. …..Respondent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948 9809 Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri A. Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/247/2001-IR(B.I) dated 21.11.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of Sri D. Karimulla Khan, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 11/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. The perusal of the claim statement filed by the Petitioner as well as the counter of the Respondent goes to reveal that this matter pertains to the termination of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent. The Appropriate government has not referred any industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in respect of termination of Petitioner.

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Thus, in view of the above provision the Industrial Tribunal cannot decide a dispute not explicitly referred to it by the appropriate Government as it's jurisdiction under Section 10 (4) of ID Act, 1947 is confined to the specific point of dispute mentioned in the reference order and matter incidental there to. If the reference is for dismissal but the matter pertains to the termination, the Tribunal must strictly stick to the referred terms.

3. Therefore, in view of the provision contained under Section 10(4) of the I.D.Act, 1947, there is no reference of the industrial dispute regarding termination of the Petitioner for adjudication before this Tribunal. The reference of dispute herein pertain to the dismissal of the Petitioner from service. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot adjudicate the dispute in the absence of reference of termination by retrenchment of Petitioner. Thus, Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 6th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1916.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (ं14/2001) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/289/2000- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक9810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1916.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/289/2000- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Deputy Director

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 14/2001

Between:

Smt. Sirra Sarojini,

W/o. Surya Rao,

R/o. Behind AGPSG College, II Ward,

Small Bridge,

Vuyyuru, Krihna Dist. 521165, A.P.

… Petitioner And

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Region-II,

Labbipeta,

Vijayawada – 520 001. …..Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri Macharla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/289/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.04.2001, which has been referred under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication with the following terms:-

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the services of Smt. S. Sarojini, Ex-Messenger, by way of oral orders w.e.f.31.3.97 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 14/2001 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.

2. The perusal of the claim statement filed by the Petitioner as well as the counter of the Respondent goes to reveal that this matter pertains to the termination of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent. The Appropriate government has not referred any industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in respect of termination of Petitioner.

Section 10 (4) provides:-

"10(4):-Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under

this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,

[the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to

those points and matters incidental thereto."

Thus, in view of the above provision the Industrial Tribunal cannot decide a dispute not explicitly referred to it by the appropriate Government as it's jurisdiction under Section 10 (4) of ID Act, 1947 is confined to the specific point of dispute mentioned in the reference order and matter incidental there to. If the reference is for dismissal but the matter pertains to the termination, the Tribunal must strictly stick to the referred terms.

3. Therefore, in view of the provision contained under Section 10(4) of the I.D.Act, 1947, there is no reference of the industrial dispute regarding termination of the Petitioner for adjudication before this Tribunal. The reference of dispute herein pertain to the dismissal of the Petitioner from service. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot adjudicate the dispute in the absence of reference of termination by retrenchment of Petitioner. Thus, Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 6th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2026

का.आ. 1917.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का 14)की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण–सह–श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट

(सन्दर्भ संख्या 7/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है,

[सं. एल.12012/237/2001-आई.आर.(बी-I)] सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026

S.O. 1917.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID.No.7/2002) 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.