6349 GI/2026
(9543)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजिक
WEEKLY
सं. 33]
नई दिल् ली, अगस्ट् त 23—अगस्ट् त 29, 2026, िजनवार/ भाद्र 1—भाद्र 7, 1948
No. 33]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 23— AUGUST 29, 2026, SATURDAY/ BHADRA 1–– BHADRA 7, 1948
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
मंत्राल
( . . . प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1825.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड
(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।
एति् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार, अगस्ट्त 20, 2026 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवविन करने के जलए भारती जमिनों/ृोस्ट्टों
में सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारर ों के प ृ में इस मंत्राल के जनम्नजलज त अजिकारर ों की जन ुजि करता िज:
क्रम सं. अजिकारी का नाम और ृि
जमिन / ृोस्ट्ट जिसमें सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ
में जन ुि दक ा ग ा िज
1
श्री दिनेि मीणा, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारती िूतावास, िेलससकी
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23092026-276411
CG-DL-W-23092026-276411
9544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2
श्री गगन अग्रवाल, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, सेंट डेजनस, रर ूजन न द्वीृ
(फ़्ांस)
[फा. सं. .4330/01/2026(15)]
, अवर सजचव ( -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:
S.
No
Name & Rank of the Officer
Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant
Consular Officer
1
Mr. Dinesh Meena, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Helsinki
2
Mr. Gagan Agarwal, Assistant Section Officer
Consulate General of India, Saint Denis, Reunion
Island (France)
[F. No. T.4330/01/2026 (15)]
TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy.(CPV-II)
कार्ममक, लोक जिका त और ृेंिन मंत्राल
(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रजल, 2026
का.आ. 1826.—केन् द्री सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 की
अजिजन म सं. 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, जमजोरम राज्
सरकार की अजिसूचना ज्ञाृन सं. सी-13015/4/2026–वीआईिी, आइिोल, दिनांक 23.02.2026, सतकवता जवभाग के
माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से लेंगृुई में भारती वा ु सेना के जलए भूजम अजिग्रिण की प्रदक्र ा में 188 करोड़ (लगभग)
प ृए के सावविजनक िन का अजभकज त गंभीर भ्रष्टाचार, आजिकाररक ृि का िुरुृ ोग एवं आृराजिक षड्यंत्र के संबंि में
तुइ ुितलांग, आइिोल के श्री लालजृ नफेला चावंग ु, अजिविा, उृाध् क्ष, एमएनएफ जवजि बोडव एवं मिासजचव,
जमजो नेिनल फ्रंट, मिामु् ाल से श्री रोिसमगजल ाना, वजवाकवन, आइिोल, श्री िेनरी लालरेमसांगा ह्लॉनमुअल,
बोंगकवन, आइिोल एवं दकन्िीं अन् गजर सरकरी व्यजि ों अ वा लोक सेवकों के जवरुद्ध मु् सतकवता अजिकारी,
जमिोरम सरकार द्वारा दिनांक 05.02.2026 को प्राप्त जिका त के आिार ृर प्रारंजभक ृूछताछ एवं जन जमत मामला ििव
करने िेतु दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार जमजोरम राज् के भीतर समस्ट्त
क्षेत्रों में करती िजI
[फा. सं. 228/34/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अप्रजल, 2026
का.आ. 1827.—केंद्री सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्री
अजिजन म 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए अजिसूचना सं.
िी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं. 163/2025/गषि, जतरुवनंतृुरम, दिनांक 26.08.2025, गषि (एम) जवभाग, (एस.आर.ओ. सं.
984/2025) और िुजद्ध ृत्र अजिसूचना सं. िी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं. 83/2026/गषि, जतरुवनंतृुरम, दिनांक 25.03.2026,
गषि (एम) जवभाग, (एस.आर.ओ. सं. 445/2026) के माध् म से िारी केरल राज् सरकार की सम्मजत से श्री प्रमोि कुमार
सजवता, अिीक्षक, सीमा िुल्क आ ुि (जनवारक) का का ावल , कोचीन, केरल के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म,
1988 की िारा 13 की उृ-िारा (2) सृर त उृ-िारा (1) का ंड (ई) एवं भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988
(2018 के केन्द्री अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 13 की उृ-िारा (2) सृर त उृ-िारा (1) का ंड (बी)
के तित काररत उि अजिजन मो के अंतगवत िंडनी अृरािों एवं इस मामले के संबंि में, उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न संव्यविार
के क्रम में काररत दकन्िीं अन् अृरािों का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और
क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/38/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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.
9546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2026
का.आ. 1828.—केन् द्री सरकार, एति् द्वारा, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 की
केन्द्री अजिजन म सं. XXV) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए ृंिाब
राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.: गषि–एचएम-40जवजवि/25/2024-4एच4/I/1366839/2026, दिनांक
13.04.2026, गषि जवभाग (गषि-4 िा ा) के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (वषव 2018
में ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िंडनी अृरािों के जलए श्री गुरिीत ससि, एसएसई (ड्रासवग्स) इंिीजन ररग
जवभाग, ृरट ाला लोकोमोरटव वर्कसव (ृीएलडब्लल् ू), ृरट ाला, ृंिाब के जवरुद्ध दिनांक 15.04.2026 को ििव दकए गए
आरसी 0052026ए0008 में ृंिीकरण एवं अन्वेषण िेतु दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और
क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 15.04.2026 से) ृंिाब राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/40/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री अनुृम एस िमाव, अजिविा को, अृर सेिन न् ा ािीि, साकेत
न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली के न् ा ाल में, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंद्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त, मामला सं् ा
आरसी14/2023- ईओ-II, से उद्भूत िोने वाली िांजडक ृुनरीक्षण सं् ा 488/2025 के अजभ ोिन का और तत्सम
प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी उच्चतर न् ा ाल में इससे उद्भूत िोने वाले दकन्िीं अन् मामलों का संचालन करने िेतु,
का वभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से मामले का जनृटान िोने तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक
अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज ।
[फा. सं. 225/2/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9547
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2026
का.आ. 1830.—केन् द्री सरकार, एति् द्वारा, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
केन्द्री अजिजन म XXV) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए झार ंड
राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-411/2026-2227, रांची, दिनांक 13.04.26, गषि, कारागार एवं
आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से िा ा प्रमु , सीबीआई, एसीबी, रांची के दिनांक 01.04.2026 के
ृत्र सं् ा 269/2026-आर के माध् म से दकए गए अनुरोि ृर श्री रजव रंिन कुमार, प्रबंिक, केन्द्री भंडारण जनगम
(सीडब्लल् ूसी), ििारीबाग, सीडब्लल् ूसी, उृभोिा मामले, ाद्य और सावविजनक जवतरण मंत्राल , भारत सरकार के जवरुद्ध
भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म-1988 (वषव 2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित काररत अृराि के जलए दिनांक
23.04.2026 को ृंिीकषत आरसी0242026ए0006 में त ा इस मामले के अन्वेषण के िौरान प्रकाि में आए दकसी अन्
अृराि सजित ऐसे एक ा उससे अजिक अृरािों से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा
उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि(िों) में मामले का ृंिीकरण और अन्वेषण करने
िेतु दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 23.04.2026 से का ोत्तर
प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त झार ंड राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/41/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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. —केंद्री सरकार दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्री
अजिजन म 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, रािस् ान राि्
सरकार की अजिसूचना सं. एफ.19(8)गषि-5/2026, ि ृुर, दिनांक: 17.04.2026, गषि (िीआर.-V) जवभाग के माध् म
से िारी सम्मजत से केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो, भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक िा ा, िोिृुर में ृंिीकषत मामला सं.
आरसी0312026ए0002 में सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 त ा इससे संबंजित दकन्िीं अन् िाराओं के तित
आरोृी फमों/कंृजन ों अ वा व्यजि ों द्वारा कज त प ृ से काररत अृरािों का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष
ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन के सभी सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार रािस्ट् ान राि् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/43/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
9548
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.— केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री अजमतवा मजत्रा, अजिविा को, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ 3 में
उजल्लज त न् ा ाल में दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन, (केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त, उि सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में
उजल्लज त मामलों (ृजिम बंगाल राज् में मु् प ृ से मतिानोत्तर सिसा मामलों के प ृ में ज्ञात) के अजभ ोिन का और
ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों का तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकन्िीं अृील ा
ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल ों में संचालन करने िेतु, रािृत्र में इस अजिसूचना के प्रकािन की तारी से मामले का जनृटान िोने
तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज, अ ावत् :-
सारणी
क्र. सं.
मामला सं् ा
न् ा ाल का नाम
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
आरसी 0562021 एस 0032
अृर सेिन न् ा ािीि, फास्ट्ट रजक न् ा ाल , िजल्ि ा, जिला-ृुरबा
मेदिनीृुर
2.
आरसी 0562021 एस 0033
अृर जिला और सेिन न् ा ािीि, प्र म न् ा ाल (अनुसूजचत िाजत/
अनुसूजचत िनिाजत जविेष न् ा ाल ) तमलुक जिला-ृुरबा मेदिनीृुर
3.
आरसी 0562021 एस 0052
जिला और सेिन न् ा ािीि तमलुक
[फा. सं. 225/4/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9549
TABLE
Serial
number.
Case number
Name of Court
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
RC0562021S0032
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Haldia, District-Purba Medinipur;
2.
RC 0562021S0033
Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Court (Special SC/ST Court) Tamluk,
District-Purba Medinipur;
3.
RC0562021S0052
District & Sessions Judge, Tamluk.
[F. No. 225/4/2026-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2026
का.आ. 1833.—केन्द्री सरकार,भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता,2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित् त िजर्क त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री एस वी रािू, अजतररि मिा सॅजलजसटर को, दिल्ली उच्च
न् ा ाल के समक्ष, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंद्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) की ओर से मामला सं0
आरसी2202022ई0007 सीबीआई ईओ-2 नई दिल्ली(सामानत ा नौकरी के बिले भूजम घोटाला के नाम से िाना िाता
िज) से संबंजित डब्लल् ू ृी(सीआरएल)1845/2025(लालू प्रसाि ािव जवरुद्ध सीबीआई) और तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा
स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृीली ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में उि मामले से उद्भूत िोने वाली दकसी अृील,ृुनरीक्षण और अन्
जवष ों का संचालन करने के जलए, मामले का जनृटान िोने तक, ा अगले आिेि तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष
लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुर्क त करती िज।
[फा. सं. 225/3/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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 िून, 2026
का.आ. 1834.—केन्द्री सरकार,भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता,2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित् त िजर्क त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए,श्री सवांग नामग् ाल,अजिवर्क ता को, जसदिम राज् में जविेष
न् ा ािीि का न् ा ाल , भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, गंगटोक के समक्ष, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंद्री अन्वेषण
ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा संस्ट् ाजृत मामला सं0 आरसी2172025ए0008/सीबीआई/एसी-2 नई दिल्ली के अजभ ोिन और तत्सम
प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृीली ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में उि मामले से उद्भूत िोने वाली दकसी अृील,
ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों का संचालन करने,उसके ृिग्रिण करने की तारी से मामले का जनृटारा िोने तक ा अगले
आिेि तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुर्क त करती िज।
[फा. सं. 225/5/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
9550
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 िुलाई, 2026
का.आ. 1835.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री राि मोिन चंि, अजिविा को, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन,
(केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त,नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में उजल्लज त मामलों का, उि सारणी के तत्स्ट् ानी
स्ट्तंभ (4) में उजल्लज त न् ा ाल ों में अजभ ोिन का और ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत िोने वालीअृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन्
मामलों का तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकन्िीं अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल ों में संचालन करने िेतु, मामलों का
जनृटान िोने तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज,
अ ावत् :-
सारणी
क्र.
सं.
आरसी सं् ा
मामले का िीषवक
न् ा ाल का नाम
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
आरसी0032021ए0007
सीबीआई बनाम मेससव 4 िीजन स
माइंड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड और अन् ;
1-मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट दिल्ली,
आरएडीसी, नई दिल्ली;
2.
आरसी0032022ए0039
सीबीआई बनाम मेससव सी.ृी.आर.
कजजृटल सर्मवसेि, और अन् ;
6-अृर मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, नई
दिल्ली;
3.
आरसी0032022ए0027
(िो अिालती मामले)
सीबीआई
बनाम
मेससव
सुनार
डा मंड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नई दिल्ली
और अन् ;
3-अृर मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट,
आरएडीसी/नई दिल्ली;
4.
आरसी0032022ए0016
सीबीआई बनाम मेससव वन वल्डव रजवल
सॉल् ूिंस जलजमटेड और अन् ;
6-अृर मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट,
आरएडीसी/नई दिल्ली;
5.
आरसी0032023ए0035
सीबीआई
बनाम
मेससव
बोनमाटव
इंटरनेिनल जलजमटेड (बीएमआईएल)
और अन् ;
8-जविेष
न् ा ािीि
(ृीसी
अजिजन म)
(सीबीआई)
आरएडीसी/नई दिल्ली;
6.
आरसी0032023ए0015
(िो न् ा ाल ी मामले)
सीबीआई
बनाम
मेससव
स्ट्टाइल
माकेरटग प्राइवेट जलजमटेड और अन् ;
3-अृर मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट,
आरएडीसी/नई दिल्ली;
7.
आरसी0032023ए0011
सीबीआई बनाम मेससव िीृ वेल्डमेि
प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नई दिल्ली और
अन् ;
7-अृर मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट,
आरएडीसी, नई दिल्ली;
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9551
8.
आरसी0032022ए0043
(िो न् ा ाल ी मामले)
सीबीआई बनाम श्री िरीि नारंग और
अन्
1-मु्
न् ाज क
मजिस्ट्रेट,
आरएडीसी, नई दिल्ली;
9.
आरसी0032022ए0025
सीबीआई बनाम मेससव ीम एर्कसृोटव
प्राइवेट जलजमटेड और अन् ;
7-अृर मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट,
आरएडीसी, नई दिल्ली;
10.
आरसी0032022ए0015
सीबीआई बनाम मेससव एम.आर. चेन्स
प्राइवेट जलजमटेड और अन् ।
1-मु्
न् ाज क
मजिस्ट्रेट,
आरएडीसी/नई दिल्ली
[फा. सं. 225/6/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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
Sl.
No.
RC. No.
Title of the case
Name of the Court
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
RC0032021A0007 CBI vs. M/s 4 Genius Minds Pvt. Ltd. &
others;
1-Chief Judicial Delhi Magistrate, RADC,
New Delhi;
2
RC0032022A0039 CBI vs. M/s C.P.R. Capital Services, &
others;
6-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, New
Delhi;
3
RC0032022A0027
(Two Court cases)
CBI vs. M/s Sunar Diamonds Pvt. New
Delhi & others;
3-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
RADC/ New Delhi;
4
RC0032022A0016 CBI vs. M/s One World Travel Solutions
Ltd & others;
6- Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
RADC/ New Delhi;
5
RC0032023A0035 CBI vs. M/s BONMART International
Limited (BMIL) & others;
8-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
RADC/New Delhi;
6
RC0032023A0015
(Two Court cases)
CBI vs. M/s Style Marketing Pvt. Ltd. &
others;
3-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
RADC/New Delhi;
7
RC0032023A0011 CBI vs. M/s Deep Weldmesh Pvt. Ltd. New
Delhi & others;
7-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
RADC, New Delhi;
8
RC0032022A0043
(Two Court cases)
CBI vs. Shri Harish Narang
& others;
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate, RADC, New
Delhi;
9
RC0032022A0025 CBI vs. M/s Theme Export Pvt Ltd &
others;
7-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate RADC,
New Delhi;
10
RC0032022A0015 CBI vs. M/s M.R. Chains Pvt. Ltd. & others. 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate, RADC/ New
Delhi.
[F. No. 225/6/2026-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
9552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2026
का.आ. 1836.—केन् द्री सरकार, एति् द्वारा, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 की
केन्द्री अजिजन म सं. XXV) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए
ृंिाब राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.: गषि–एचएम-40जवजवि/25/2024-4एच4/I/1366839/2026, दिनांक
13.04.2026, गषि जवभाग (गषि-4 िा ा) के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (वषव
2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िंडनी अृरािों के जलए श्री गुरिीत ससि, एसएसई (ड्रासवग्स)
इंिीजन ररग जवभाग, ृरट ाला लोकोमोरटव वर्कसव (ृीएलडब्लल् ू), ृरट ाला, ृंिाब के जवरुद्ध दिनांक 15.04.2026 को
ििव दकए गए आरसी 0052026ए0008 में ृंिीकरण एवं अन्वेषण िेतु दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन के सिस्ट् ों की
िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 15.04.2026 से) ृंिाब राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/47/2022-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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 िुलाई, 2026
का.आ. 1837.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री बालकरन ससि, अजिविा को, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन,
(केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में उजल्लज त मामलों (मु् तः एनआरएचएम
मामलों के प ृ में ज्ञात) का, उस सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (5) में उजल्लज त न् ा ाल में अजभ ोिन का और ऐसे मामलों से
उद्भूत िोने वाली दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों का तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा
ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में संचालन करने िेतु, मामलों का जनृटान िोने तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूववतर
िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज, अ ावत् :-
सारणी
क्र.
सं.
आरसी सं् ा
सीसी सं.
मामले का िीषवक
न् ा ाल का नाम
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0001
05/2013
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
2
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0001
11/2014
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9553
3
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0001
12/2014
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
4
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0001
13/2014
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
5
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0001
14/2014
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
6
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0001
15/2014
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
7
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0001
16/2014
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
8
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0001
04/2017
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
9
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0002
13/2013
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
10
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0002
19/2015
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
11
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0002
20/2015
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
12
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0002
25/2015
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
13
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0002
26/2015
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
14
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0002
28/2015
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
15
आरसीडीएसटी2012ए0002
27/2015
एनआरएचएम मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई
मामले, गाजि ाबाि
[फा. सं. 225/8/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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
Sl.
No.
RC. No.
CC. No.
Title of the
case
Name of the Court
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
RCDST2012A0001
05/2013
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
2
RCDST2012A0001
11/2014
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
3
RCDST2012A0001
12/2014
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
4
RCDST2012A0001
13/2014
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
5
RCDST2012A0001
14/2014
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
6
RCDST2012A0001
15/2014
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
7
RCDST2012A0001
16/2014
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
8
RCDST2012A0001
04/2017
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
9
RCDST2012A0002
13/2013
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
10
RCDST2012A0002
19/2015
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
11
RCDST2012A0002
20/2015
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
12
RCDST2012A0002
25/2015
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
13
RCDST2012A0002
26/2015
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
14
RCDST2012A0002
28/2015
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
15
RCDST2012A0002
27/2015
NRHM case
Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ghaziabad
[F. No. 225/8/2026-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 17 िुलाई, 2026
का.आ. 1838.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री बालकरन ससि, अजिविा को, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन,
(केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (4) में उजल्लज त मामलोंका, उस सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (4)
में उजल्लज त न् ा ाल में अजभ ोिन का और ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत िोने वाली दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों
का तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में संचालन करने िेतु, मामलों का जनृटान
िोने तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज, अ ावत् :-
सारणी
क्र. सं.
आरसी सं् ा
मामले का िीषवक
न् ा ाल का नाम
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
आरसी3(एस)/2020/एससीI/
नई दिल्ली
सीबीआई बनाम सुनील रा ी
औरअन्
(मुन्ना बिरंगी ित् ा मामला)
श्री अंिनी कुमार, जविेष न् ा ािीि,
गाजि ाबाि
2.
आरसी 3(एस)/2022/एससीI/
नई दिल्ली
सीबीआई बनाम प्रेम रजव वमाव
(स्ट् ानी अजभ ोिन मामला)
सुश्री टी जप्र ििवनी, मु् न् ाज क
मजिस्ट्रेट, राउि एवेन् ू जिला न् ा ाल ,
दिल्ली
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9555
3.
आरसी 3(एस)/2021/एससीI/
नई दिल्ली
सीबीआई बनाम मजससव फाइव
कोर इलेर्कराजनर्कस जलजमटेड
(बैंक फ्रॉड मामला)
मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, राउि एवेन् ू
जिला न् ा ाल , दिल्ली
4.
आरसी 4(एस)/2006/एससीI/
नई दिल्ली
सीबीआई बनाम सुिील प्रकाि
सर्कसेना और अन् (भगवती
सीिीएचएस मामला)
जविेष न् ा ािीि, राउि एवेन् ू जिला
न् ा ाल , दिल्ली
5.
आरसी 8(एस)/2024/एससीI/
नई दिल्ली
सीबीआई बनाम अजभषेक गुप्ता
और अन्
(राव्स एकेडमी मामला)
जिला और सेिनप्रिानन् ा ािीि, राउि
एवेन् ू जिला न् ा ाल , दिल्ली
6.
आरसी
02(एस)/2017/
सीबीआई/ एससी-III/एनडी
िवािर बाग मामला
जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, गाजि ाबाि
7.
आरसी 1(ए)/2012/सीबीआई/
एससी-II/एनडी
एनआरएचएम मामला
प्रिान न् ा ािीि, गाजि ाबाि
8.
आरसी 3(ए)/2012/सीबीआई/
एससी-II/एनडी
एनआरएचएम मामला
प्रिान न् ा ािीि, गाजि ाबाि
[फा. सं. 225/9/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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
Sl.
No.
RC. No.
Title of the case
Name of the Court
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
RC 3(S)/2020/ SC I/ New Delhi
CBI V/s Sunil Rathi & others
(Munna Bajrangi murder case)
Shri Anjani Kumar, Special Judge,
Ghaziabad
2
RC 3(S)2022/ SC I/ New Delhi
CBI v/s Prem Ravi Verma
(Local Prosecution case)
Ms. T Priyadarshini Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rouse Avenue District
Court, Delhi
3
RC 3(S)2021/ SC I/ New Delhi
CBI
V/s
M/s
Five
Core
Electronics Ltd. (Bank Fraud
Case)
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rouse
Avenue District Court, Delhi
4
RC 4 (S)/2006/SC I/ New Delhi
CBI V/s Sushil Prakash Saxena
and others (Bhagwati CGHS
Case)
Special Judge, Rouse Avenue District
Court, Delhi
9556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5
RC 8(S)/ 2024/ SC I/ New Delhi
CBI V/s Abhisek Gupta and
others (Rao's Academy case)
Principal District and Session Judge,
Rouse Avenue District Court, Delhi
6
RC-02(S)/2017/CBI/SC-III/ND
Jawahar Bagh case.
Special Judge, CВІ, Ghaziabad
7
RC 1(A)/2012/CBI/SC-II/ND
NRHM case
Principal Judge, Ghaziabad
8
RC 3(A)/2012/CBI/SC-II/ND
NRHM case
Principal Judge, Ghaziabad
[F. No. 225/9/2026-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1839.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री एस.वी.रािू, भारत के एजडिनल सॉजलजसटर िनरल को दिल्ली
उच्च न् ा ाल के समक्ष दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंद्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) की ओर से मामला सं. आरसी 06(ई)/1999-
एसआई ू-आईएर्कस से उद्भूत ररट ाजचका (िांजडक 675/2001) (जवि अग्रवाल बनाम राज् और अन् ) का और
तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में, दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा इस मामले से
उद्भूत िोने वाले अन् मामलों का संचालन करने िेतु, मामले का जनृटान िोने तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमें से िो भी
ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज।
[फा. सं. 225/12/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1840.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री प्रताृ िी ृजडिल, अजिविा को, जविेष न् ा ािीि,
सीबीआई-I, एनावकुलम के न् ा ाल के समक्ष दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंद्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त, मामला
सं् ा आरसी 08(एस)/2016/सीबीआई/एससीबी/टीवीृीएम(ृय् ोली मनोि ित् ा मामला) के अजभ ोिन का और जवजि
द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में इस मामले से उद्भूत िोने वाली दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन्
मामले का संचालन करने िेतु, मामले का जनृटान िोने तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक
अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज ।
[फा. सं. 225/10/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1841.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री ृा व सार ी ित्ता, अजिविा को, अृर मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट,
बारासात जिला 24 ृरगना(उत्तरी) और अृर जिला न् ा ािीि, बरासात जिला 24 ृरगना(उत्तरी), ृजिमी बंगाल
राज् के न् ा ाल में, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंद्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त, मामला सं् ा आरसी
02(एस)/2026-केओएल, के अजभ ोिन का और तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल
में उि मामले से उद्भूत िोने वालीदकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों का संचालन करने िेतु, इसका जनृटान िोने
तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज ।
[फा. सं. 225/11/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1842.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री एस.वी.रािू, भारत के एजडिनल सॉजलजसटर िनरल को दिल्ली
उच्च न् ा ाल के समक्ष दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंद्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) की ओर से मामला सं. आरसी
06(ई)/1999-एसआई ू-आईएर्कस से उद्भूत ररट ाजचका (िांजडक 675/2001) (जवि अग्रवाल बनाम राज् और अन् )
का और तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में, दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा इस
मामले से उद्भूत िोने वाले अन् मामलों का संचालन करने िेतु, मामले का जनृटान िोने तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमें
से िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज ।
[फा. सं. 225/15/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
9558
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1843.—केंद्री सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की
उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री तुषार मेिता सॉजलजसटर िनरल, को माननी दिल्ली उच्च
न् ा ाल और भारत के माननी उच्चतम न् ा ाल के समक्ष, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंद्री अन्वेषण ब्ल ूरो) द्वारा
संजस्ट् त िांजडक ृुनरीक्षण सं् ा 134/2026 और आरसी.53(A)/2022/एसीबी/दिल्ली में उद्भूत िोने वाले अन् मामलों
के अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने िेतु, 17 अगस्ट्त, 2026 से मामले का जनृटान िोने तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमें से
िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज ।
[फा. सं. 225/15/2026-एवीडी-II]
सत् म श्रीवास्ट् तव, अवर सजचव
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 17th 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.
ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1844.—ृेरोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का आजिग्रिण) अजिजन म
1962 (1962 का 50), (इसके बाि उि अजिजन म किा िाएगा) की िारा 2 की उृिारा (क) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र
सरकार उि अजिजन म के अिीन नीचे िी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त व्यजि को कॉलम (2) में उजल्लज त
क्षेत्र के संबंि में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लज त सििुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड की ृररचाजलत ृेरोजल म
ृाइृलाइनो के जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी के का ो को करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।
व्यजि का नाम
क्षेत्राजिकार क्षेत्र
ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइनो का नाम
(1)
(2)
(3)
श्रीमती रे ा, जविेष भूजम
अजिग्रिण अजिकारी एवं सक्षम
प्राजिकारी, भारती राष्ट्री
रािमागव प्राजिकरण, एनएच -75,
िासन
कनावटक राज्
मैंगलोर िसन मजसूर बंगलुरु एलृीिी ृाइृलाइन
एवं िासन चेरलाृल्ली एलृीिी ृाइृलाइन
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9559
इससे ृुवव भारत के रािृत्र में प्रकाजित का. आ. 109, दिनांक 08.02.2021 के तित कनावटक राज् में सििुस्ट्तान
ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड की मैंगलोर-िसन-मजसूर-सोलूर ृाइृलाइन और आ. 878, दिनांक 14.05.2024 के तित
कनावटक राज् में सििुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड की िासन चेरलाृल्ली ृाइृलाइन के जलए अजिसूजचत सक्षम
अजिकारर ों को डी-नोरटफाइड समझा िाए।
ि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की तारी से प्रभावी िोगी।
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर-I/ई-30930]
िररत कुमार िार्क , अवर सजचव
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:
Name of person
Area of Jurisdiction
Name of Petroleum Pipelines
(1)
(2)
(3)
Smt. Rekha, Special Land Acquisition
officer and Competent Authority,
National Highways Authority of India,
NH -75, Hassan
Karnataka State
Mangalore-Hassan-Mysore-Bengaluru LPG
Pipeline and Hassan Cherlapalli LPG
Pipeline
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 जवमानन मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 7 िुलाई, 2026
का.आ. 1845.—केन्द्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग), जन म, 1976 के
जन म-10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्राल के अंतगवत भारती जवमानृत्तन प्राजिकरण के
अिीनस्ट् जनम्नजलज त का ावल ों, जिनमें 80 प्रजतित कार्ममकों ने सििी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को
एतद्दद्दवारा अजिसूजचत करती िज।
1. जवमानृत्तन जनिेिक का का ावल , भा.जव.प्रा., सोलाृूर िवाईअड्डा, सोलाृूर, िोटगी रोड, सोलाृूर- 413224
2. का ावल जवमानृत्तन जनिेिक, भा.जव.प्रा., रीवा जवमानृत्तन, रीवा (मध् प्रिेि)- 486006
3. जवमानृत्तन जनिेिक का का ावल , भा.जव.प्रा., सतना िवाईअड्डा, सतना, मध् प्रिेि- 485001
4. जवमानृत्तन जनिेिक का का ावल , िजत ा िवाईअड्डा, िजत ा- 475661
5. जवमानृत्तन
जनिेिक
का
का ावल ,
भा.जव.प्रा.,
जतरुजचराृल्ली
अंतरराष्ट्री
जवमानृत्तन,
जतरुजचराृल्ली- 620007
[फा. सं. ई. 11014/2/2023-रा.भा.]
मिु सुिन िंकर, संयुक्त सजचव
9560
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 िुलाई, 2026
का.आ. 1846.—केन्द्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग), जन म, 1976 के
जन म-10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्राल के अंतगवत नागर जवमानन मिाजनिेिाल के
अिीनस्ट् उृ जनिेिक (उड़न ोग् ता) का का ावल , अमषतसर, श्री गुरु राम िास िी अंतरराष्ट्री िवाईअड्डा, अमषतसर-
143101, जिसके 80% कार्ममकों ने सििी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज।
[फा. सं. ई. 11014/2/2023-रा.भा.]
मिु सुिन िंकर, संयुक्त सजचव
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.
इस्ट्ृात मंत्राल
िुजद्धृत्र
नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1847.—चूँदक केन् द्री सरकार को ि प्रतीत िोता िज दक लोकजित में ि आव क िज दक दकरंिुल से
जविा ाृत्तनम तक स्ट् लरी के प ृ में लौि अ स्ट्क के ृररविन के जलए, आसेलरजमत्तल जनप्ृॉन स्ट्टील इंजड ा प्राइवेट
जलजमटेड द्वारा छत्तीसगढ़, ओजडिा और आंध्र प्रिेि राज् ों से िोकर गुिरने वाली ृाइृलाइनें जबछाई िानी चाजिए।
चूँदक ि भी आव क िज दक आगामी एकीकषत इस्ट्ृात सं ंत्र को कच्चे माल की आृूर्मत के जलए, कोय् ुरु मंडल के
को ागडाबाृालेम ग्राम की सीमा से लेकर, निाृल्ली मंडल के डोनीवानीलक्ष्मीृुरम तक मौिूिा कॉररडोर से अलग
िटकर लौि अ स्ट्क स्ट् लरी के ृररविन के जलए ृाइृलाइनें जबछाई िानी चाजिए ।
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9561
और चूँदक ऐसा प्रतीत िोता िज दक ऐसी ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्र ोिन के जलए, आंध्र प्रिेि राज् के अनकाृल्ली
जिले के रोलुगुंटा मंडल जस्ट् त मो ासा कोताृटनम (ग्राम), की भूजम ृर उृ ोग का अजिकार अर्मित करना आव क िज।
इसजलए, नीचे िी गई अनुसूची के स्ट् तंभ सं् ा-1 में उजल्लज त सवेक्षण सं् ाऍं भ भूलवि दिनांक 25.02.2026
केका.आ.सं् ा 1097(अ)में अजिसूजचत िो गई ीं, जिनका प्रस्ट्ताजवत मागव के अजिकार के संरे ण (अलाइनमेंट) से कोई
संबंि निीं िैं।
और चूँदक मागव के अजिकार के संरे ण (अलाइनमेंट) से संबंजित वास्ट्तजवक सवेक्षण सं् ा और उनके क्षेत्रफल को
अजिसूजचत करना आव क ृा ा ग ा िज, और ृेरोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोगकताव के अजिकार का
अिवन) अजिजन म-1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केंद्री
सरकार एतद्द्वारा उसमें उृ ोगकताव के अजिकार को अर्मित करने के अृने आि की घोषणा करती िज।`
और चूँदक, केंद्री सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिनांक 25.02.2026 को भारत के असािारण रािृत्र में प्रकाजित इस्ट्ृात
मंत्राल , भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना का.आ.1097 (अ)के जलए जनम्नजलज त िुजद्धृत्र िारी करती िज।
कोई व्यजि िो उि अनुसूची के स्ट् तंभ सं् ा-2 में वर्मणत भूजम में जितबद्ध िज, इस अजिसूचना के प्रकािन की
तारी से इिीस दिनों के भीतर, इस्ट्ृात मंत्राल , भारत सरकार की दिनांक 29 जसतंबर, 2025 की अजिसूचना
का.आ.1874, में अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी अ ावत् सक्षम प्राजिकारी एवं जविेष उृ कलेर्कटर (एलए) एृीआईआईसी,
इंडजस्ट्र लएस्ट्टेट,जविा ाृत्तनम जिनके क्षेत्राजिकार में भूजम आती िज, भूजम के नीचे ृाइृलाइन जबछाने ृर आृजत्त ििव
करा सकता िज।
इस प्रकार की आृजत्त ििव कराने वाले प्रत् ेक व्यजि को स्ट् ृ् ट प ृ से ि भी उल् ले करना िोगा दक र्क ा वि
व्यजिगत प ृ से ा दकसी कानूनी सलािकार के माध् म से सुनवाई करना चािता िज अ वा निीं।
"अनुसूची"
ग्राम: मो ासा कोताृटनम , मंडल: रोलुगुन्टा,
जिला: अनकाृल्ली, राज् : आंध्र प्रिेि
स्ट् तंभ सं.-01
स्ट् तंभ सं.-2
दिनांक 25.02.2026 के का.आ.1097(अ.) मेंृूवव में अजिसूजचत सवेक्षण
सं् ा और क्षेत्रफल
वतवमान सवेक्षण सं् ा और क्षेत्रफल िो ृूवव में
अजिसूजचत सवेक्षण सं् ा और क्षेत्रफल के स्ट् ान
ृर अभी बताएगए िैं।
क्र.सं.
सवे नं.
क्षेत्रफल
वगीकरण
सवे नं.
क्षेत्रफल
वगीकरण
एकड़-सेंट
वगव मीटर
सरकारी/जनिी
एकड़-सेंट
वगव
मीटर
सरकारी/
जनिी भूजम
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
43
1-83
7406
जनिी भूजम
138
0-57
2307
सरकारी
भूजम
2
44
0-11
445
जनिी भूजम
139
0-58
2347
जनिी भूजम
3
48
0-75
3035
जनिी भूजम
140
0-57
2307
सरकारी
भूजम
9562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4
49
0-28
1133
जनिी भूजम
134
0-16
648
सरकारी
भूजम
5
57
2-09
8458
जनिी भूजम
135
0-37
1497
सरकारी
भूजम
6
55
1-98
8013
जनिी भूजम
130
0-55
2226
जनिी भूजम
7
75
0-20
809
सरकारी
भूजम
8
74/7
0-04
162
जनिी भूजम
9
74/8
0-18
728
जनिी भूजम
10
74/6
0-09
364
जनिी भूजम
11
74/9
0-26
1052
जनिी भूजम
12
74/11
0-22
890
जनिी भूजम
13
77/1
0-01
40
जनिी भूजम
14
77/2
0-11
445
जनिी भूजम
15
78/1
0-08
324
सरकारी
भूजम
16
78/2
0-07
283
जनिी भूजम
17
78/3
0-18
728
जनिी भूजम
18
78/8
0-32
1295
जनिी भूजम
19
77/4
0-04
162
जनिी भूजम
20
78/9
0-01
40
जनिी भूजम
21
86/2
0-35
1416
जनिी भूजम
22
86/1
0-29
1174
जनिी भूजम
23
85/3
0-06
243
जनिी भूजम
24
85/2
0-11
445
जनिी भूजम
25
87/1
0-29
1174
जनिी भूजम
26
88/4
0-35
1416
जनिी भूजम
27
88/5
0-07
283
सरकारी
भूजम
28
88/3
0-01
40
सरकारी
भूजम
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9563
[फा.सं. एस-28030/4/2024-आरएम (19852)]
अररिम चौिरी, उृ सजचव
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.
29
88/6
0-12
486
जनिी भूजम
30
88/7
0-16
648
जनिी भूजम
31
90/1
0-03
121
जनिी भूजम
32
88/8
0-17
688
जनिी भूजम
33
89/3
0-26
1052
जनिी भूजम
34
89/1
0-16
648
जनिी भूजम
कुल
7-04
28490
7-04
28490
9564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“SCHEDULE”
Village: Mokhasa Kothapatnam, Mandal: Rolugunta,
District: Anakapalli, State: Andhra Pradesh
Column No-01
Column No-2
Survey Nos and extents previously notified in
S.O.1097(E) dated 25.02.2026
Survey Nos and extents that are presently notified
replacing the Survey Nos and extents notified earlier
Sl.
No.
Survey
No.
Extent
Classificatio
n
Survey No.
Extent
Classification
Acre-Cents
Sq. Mts
Govt./Pvt
Acre-Cents
Sq. Mts Govt./Pvt. Land
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
43
1-83
7406
Private Land
138
0-57
2307
Govt. Land
2
44
0-11
445
Private Land
139
0-58
2347
Private Land
3
48
0-75
3035
Private Land
140
0-57
2307
Govt. Land
4
49
0-28
1133
Private Land
134
0-16
648
Govt. Land
5
57
2-09
8458
Private Land
135
0-37
1497
Govt. Land
6
55
1-98
8013
Private Land
130
0-55
2226
Private Land
7
75
0-20
809
Govt. Land
8
74/7
0-04
162
Private Land
9
74/8
0-18
728
Private Land
10
74/6
0-09
364
Private Land
11
74/9
0-26
1052
Private Land
12
74/11
0-22
890
Private Land
13
77/1
0-01
40
Private Land
14
77/2
0-11
445
Private Land
15
78/1
0-08
324
Govt. Land
16
78/2
0-07
283
Private Land
17
78/3
0-18
728
Private Land
18
78/8
0-32
1295
Private Land
19
77/4
0-04
162
Private Land
20
78/9
0-01
40
Private Land
21
86/2
0-35
1416
Private Land
22
86/1
0-29
1174
Private Land
23
85/3
0-06
243
Private Land
24
85/2
0-11
445
Private Land
25
87/1
0-29
1174
Private Land
26
88/4
0-35
1416
Private Land
27
88/5
0-07
283
Govt. Land
28
88/3
0-01
40
Govt. Land
29
88/6
0-12
486
Private Land
30
88/7
0-16
648
Private Land
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9565
[F No. S-28030/4/2024-RM (19852)]
ARINDAM CHAUDHARY, Dy. Secy.
आवासन और ििरी का व मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1848.— केन्द्री सरकार एति द्वारा आवासन और ििरी का व मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन
केन्द्री लोक जनमावण जवभाग के जनम्नजलज त का ावल ों, जिनके 80% से अजिक अजिकारर ों और कमवचारर ों ने सििी का
का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के जन म-10 के
उृजन म (4) के अंतगवत अजिसूजचत करती िज:-
1.
का ावल का वृालक अजभ ंता एवं वररष्ठ प्रबंिक (वजद्युत), गोवा ृरर ोिना, केन्द्री लोक जनमावण जवभाग,
जनमावण भवन, बाम्बोलीम, गोवा-403202
2.
का वृालक अजभ ंता (वजद्युत), दिल्ली वजद्युत मंडल-101, केन्द्री लोक जनमावण जवभाग, नॉ व ब्ललॉक,
नई दिल्ली-110001 (राष्ट्री राििानी दिल्ली संघ राज् क्षेत्र)
3.
जविेष मिाजनिेिक, चंडीगढ़, केन्द्री लोक जनमावण जवभाग, केन्द्री सिन, सजर्कटर 9-ए चंडीगढ़-160009
(चंडीगढ़ संघ राज् क्षेत्र)
4.
का ावल मु् अजभ ंता एवं का वकारी जनिेिक, दिल्ली ृरर ोिना अंचल-1, केन्द्री लोक जनमावण जवभाग,
कमरा नं. सी-414, इंद्रप्रस्ट् भवन, नई दिल्ली-110002 (राष्ट्री राििानी दिल्ली संघ राज् क्षेत्र)
5.
का वृालक अजभ ंता एवं वररष्ठ प्रबंिक (जसजवल-1), भारती प्रौ द्योजगकी संस्ट् ान ृरर ोिना मंडल-1, केन्द्री
लोक जनमावण जवभाग, नई दिल्ली-110067 (राष्ट्री राििानी दिल्ली संघ राज् क्षेत्र)
6.
का ावल का वृालक अजभ ंता, ग्वाजल र ृरर ोिना, केन्द्री लोक जनमावण जवभाग, िास्त्री नगर,
ग्वाजल र-474011 (मध् प्रिेि)
[सं. ई-11017/5/2013-जिन्िी]
गोृाल प्रसाि, आर्म क सलािकार
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)
31
90/1
0-03
121
Private Land
32
88/8
0-17
688
Private Land
33
89/3
0-26
1052
Private Land
34
89/1
0-16
648
Private Land
Total
7-04
28490
7-04
28490
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 रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रजल, 2026
का.आ. 1849.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj नेिनल एजवएिन कंृनी ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&सि&Je U;k;ky;] मुंबई-1,
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. एल-11012/44/2009-आई.आर.(सीएम-I)]
ि िीृ ािव, उ
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9567
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 िून, 2026
का.आ. 1850.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a151/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/62/2000-vkbZ-vkj(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उ
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. Director
9568
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:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9569
“ 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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 not
9572
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9575
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
9576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9577
(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:
9578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 the
9582
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9585
नई दिल्ली, 27 िुलाई, 2026
का.आ. 1851.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&सि&Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (सन्िभव सं् ा 98/2003) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. ,y-39025/01/2026-vkbZ-vkj (बी-II)-89]
सलोनी, उ
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.
…..Respondents
9586
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 Assistant
9588
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9589
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.
9590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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).
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9593
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
9594
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."
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9595
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 any
9596
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9597
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
9598
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:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9599
“(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.”
9600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9601
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 certificate
9602
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 िुलाई, 2026
का.आ. 1852.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&सि&Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (सन्िभव
सं् ा 95/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. ,y-39025/01/2026-vkbZ-vkj(बी-II)-100]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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
9604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 persons
9606
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9609
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 has
9610
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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9611
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--
9612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9613
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.
9614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9615
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 upon
9616
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9617
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.
9618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
47.
On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief
examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between
the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees
who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as
per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad,
Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given
permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on
9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that
the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. 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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1853.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस सी सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&सि&Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान la[;k
4/2023) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. एल-22013/01/2026-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]
ि िीृ ािव, उ
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. Director
9620
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1854.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
डी आर डी एल (रक्षा अनुसंिान और प्र ोगिालाएं) मेससव आर आदिनारा ण ेकेिार के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
टी.एस. कॉन्रजर्कट लेबर ूजन न (श्रीमती अनुसू ा और श्रीमती लजलता) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि
केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (आईडी नम्बर- 28/2022) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज।
[सं. ,y-42011/203/2021-vkbZ-vkj(डी ू)]
सलोनी, उ
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 – 500028
9622
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1855.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एसईसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&सि&Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर-26/2015)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. एल-22012/90/2014-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]
ि िीृ ािव, उ
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 जजला उमररया द्वारा अवेदक श्री रामदास
आ. रामगरीब, पूवव ड्रिलर, नोरोजाबाद कालरी को ददये गये आरोप पत्र ददनांक 10.05.2008 तथा की गई ववभागीय जांच के आधार
पर अपने आदेश क्रमांक 1327 ददनांक 27.10.2008 द्वारा कामगार को सेवा से बरखास्त ककया जाना न्यायसंगत है? यदद नहीं तो
कमवकार 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 of
9624
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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9625
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
9626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9627
(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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1856.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एसईसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&सि&Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर-51/2016)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. एल-22012/28/2016-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]
ि िीृ ािव, उ
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,
9628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9631
(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
9632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1857.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एसईसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&सि&Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर-83/2023)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. एल-22013/01/2026-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]
ि िीृ ािव, उ
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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9633
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.
9634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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
9636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1858.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एसईसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&सि&Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर-55/2025)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[सं. एल-22013/01/2026-आई.आर.(सीएम-II)]
ि िीृ ािव, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1859.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, िेृी ग्रुृ, जविा ा सीमेंट वर्कसव; मेससव एजटेक सर्मवसेज के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री राृ ी अप्ृलालना डू के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि,
ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 30/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-29012/06/2017-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
9638
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9639
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1860.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
लाइफ इं ोरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री एम. श्रीमना डू के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट
केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 134/2014) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-17012/67/2014-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9641
नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1861.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
लाइफ इं ोरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री के. जिवा कष्णा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट
केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 167/2014) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. ,y-17012/54/2014-vkbZvkj(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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 - ..… Respondents
9642
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1862.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 /kuckn ds iapkV (35/2014) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/01/2014-vkbZvkj(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 Officer
9644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1863.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ईएस ईएसएस एंटरप्राइिेि; राष्ट्री जनि जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री नीलम वेंकट राव के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट
(एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 23/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-119]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1864.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ईएस ईएसएस एंटरप्राइिेि; राष्ट्री जनि जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री जृल्ला
अप्ृा राव ृात्रुडु के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट
(एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 24/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-120]
सलोनी, उ
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. Director
9646
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1865.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ईएस ईएसएस एंटरप्राइिेि; राष्ट्री जनि जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री सूरी ृरिेसी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट
(एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 25/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-121]
सलोनी, उ
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.
9648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1866.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ईएस ईएसएस एंटरप्राइिेि; राष्ट्री जनि जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री सब्लबावरृु रामुना डू के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि,
ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 26/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-122]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 Officer
9650
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1867.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
लाइफ इं ोरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री एस. कोटेश्वर राव के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 13/2019) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-17012/24/2018-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1868.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
लाइफ इं ोरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री बी. उमा मिेश्वर राव के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 14/2019) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-17012/25/2018-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
9652
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1869.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव नेिनल इं ोरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री के. नरससि राव के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट
केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 68/2019) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-17012/25/2019-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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 ....….Petitioner
9654
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1870.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मजससव एसएसवी दक्रएिन; आईिी समट, एचसीएल ृोस्ट्ट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती एम. लजलता;
श्रीमती चजताला कमला; श्रीमती एम प्रमीला के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 24/2026) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-124]
सलोनी, उ
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1871.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ृी. नागरािू के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 31/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा
ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-17012/39/2013-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 Officer
9658
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1872.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
फेरो स्ट्क्रजृ जनगम जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और फेरो स्ट्क्रजृ स्ट्टाफ एंड वकवसव ूजन न के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 22/2019) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-42011/81/2018-vkbZ-vkj (डी ू)]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1873.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव वेंकट एंटरप्राइिेि; मेससव एचृीसीएल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और एचृीसीएल कॉन्रजर्कट वकवसव ूजन न के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 23/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी
के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-30011/48/2018-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
9660
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9661
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1874.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव राष्ट्री इस्ट्ृात जनगम जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और जविा ा स्ट्टील कमवचारी कांग्रेस (इंटक) के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 24/2019)
को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026
को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-26011/32/2018-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9663
नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1875.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मजससव जसरीिा जि ो ग्रेनाइट्स (ृी) जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और तेलंगाना मल्टी कॉन्रजर्कट वकवसव ूजन न
के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
18/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-27011/2/2021-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1876.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री चीकती कोमरज ा के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 67/2009) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-125]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1877.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मामूनुरु चंद्रज ा के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 69/2009) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-126]
सलोनी, उ
9666
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9667
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1878.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मोर नरसज ा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट
केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 71/2009) को िजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-127]
सलोनी, उ
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.,
.……….Petitioner
9668
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1879.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री एलुकाटी कोम्मलु के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 72/2009) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-128]
सलोनी, उ
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1880.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ुडुम सम्मज ा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट
केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 75/2009) को िजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-129]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1881.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रा राकुला इलज ा के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 86/2009) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-130]
सलोनी, उ
9672
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9673
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1882.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री डोड्डु कोम्मलु के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 87/2009) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-131]
सलोनी, उ
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., .……….Petitioner
9674
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1883.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री एलुकाटी मल्लज ा के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 88/2009) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-132]
सलोनी, उ
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1884.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव ाक ग्रेनाइट इंडस्ट्रीि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मो े इस्त्री के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट
केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (एल सी ररफरेन्स न.- 90/2009) को िजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-133]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1885.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव भारत एल् ुमीजन म कंृनी जलजमटेड; मेससव ईगल िंटसव सॉल् ूिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री
छ न कुमार िुबे के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 08/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी
के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-134]
सलोनी, उ
9678
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 kept
9680
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9681
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
9682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9683
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
9684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9685
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
9686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9687
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1886.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
जवत्ती सेवा जवभाग; भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अकबर ान मंसूरी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 15/2017) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-135]
सलोनी, उ
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,
9688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
Policy No.
Policy
Holder
Voucher No./
date
Cheq
ue
No.
Amoun
t
In favour of
Adjustment
Policy
Amount Policy Holder
342749197
Rajesh
Kumar
411573/22.09.09
2488
107500
भा.जी.बी.नन
341340860
18282/-
Chattarsingh
Kanare
342743205
Parmider
411576/22.09.09
2485
40000
भा.जी.बी.नन
341340861
341340862
341340863
343060053
B.O.C. 5436
18282/-
18282/-
18282/-
74210/-
162-
Chattarsingh
Kanare
Chattarsingh
Kanare
Chattarsingh
Kanare
Chattarsingh
Kanare
Rakesh
344822525
Rajesh Soni 411830/24.10.09
50283
35000
Chattarsing
h Kanare
Account
No.
6990100000807
5 Axis Bank
35000/-
Chattarsingh
Kanare
342744655
Allhabkash 44574/22.09.09
2487
50000
भा.जी.बी.नन
345513511
345517756
342746827
342746827
342752476
B.O.C. 5432
15000
1415
8941
21266
1943
1435
P. Dipa
P. Dipa
Mukhtyar
Khan
Mukhtyar
Khan
Mukhtyar
Khan
Rakesh
342746827
Mukhtyar
Khan
411929/09.11.09
50915
32750
भा.जी.बी.नन
341531600
32750
Akbar Khan
Loan and
Interest
342752476
Mukhtyar
Khan
411930/09.11.09
50916
24500
भा.जी.बी.नन
342752471,
341531600
15829/-
8671/-
Arshi
(Father
Akbar Khan
Loan and
Interest)
Akbar Khan
Loan and
Interest
Total 289750/-
Total
289750/-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9691
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.”
9692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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."
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9693
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.
9694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9695
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.
9696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9697
नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1887.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
ए रृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजड ा; अृसॉट ूरटजलटी सर्मवसेज के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अि कुमार
कुिवािा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 28/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-136]
सलोनी, उ
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:
"र्क ा, जन ोिक / ेकेिार, अृसोट ूरटजलटी सर्मवसेस (िो दक भारती जवमानृत्तन प्राजिकरण, रािा भोि
जवमानतल, भोृाल की स्ट् ाृना में का वरत े) व्िारा आवेिक श्री अि कुमार कुिवाि को मौज क आिेि के व्िारा
9698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
दिनांक 29/06/2019 से का व से बंि दक ा िाना उजचत िज? दि निीं तो उि कामगार अृने ृूवव के का व ृर उसी जस्ट् जत
में जन ोिन त ा संबंजित अनुतोष ृाने के अजिकारी िज।"
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9699
नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1888.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
लाइफ इं ोरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री वेि प्रकाि जतवारी के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 08/2016) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल-17012/22/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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 oral
9700
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?
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9701
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.
9702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9703
नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1889.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
नेिनल जमनरल डेवलृमेंट कॉरृोरेिन (एनएमडीसी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और ऑल इंजड ा एनएमडीसी
वकवसव फेडरेिन; मेटल माइन्स वकवसव ूजन न (आईएनटी ूसी) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 46/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-29011/02/2023-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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
9704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 the
9706
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1890.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; pSubZ ds iapkV (a12/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/17/2018-आईआर(ch-I)]
सलोनी, उ
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 Officer
9708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1891.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; pSubZ ds iapkV (29/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(ch-I)-183]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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.
9710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9711
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."
9712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9713
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.
9714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1892.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव माूँ इंिीजन ररग; मेससव रुंगटा माइन्स जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और नॉ व उड़ीसा वकवसव ूजन न के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , भुवनेश्वर ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
20/2011) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-26011/1/2010-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9715
(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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1893.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव एर्कसाइड लाइफ इं ोरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अिोक कुमार ससि के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 65/2022) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. tsM-16025/04/2026-vkbZvkj(एम)-137]
सलोनी, उ
9716
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.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9717
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1894.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव एर्कसाइड लाइफ इं ोरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अजनल कुमार जतवारी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 66/2022) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. tsM-16025/04/2026-vkbZvkj(एम)-138]
सलोनी, उ
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 refers
9718
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1895.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार गेल
(इंजड ा) जलजमटेड; मेससव वासु केजमकल्स के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सुनील कुमार क ेरर ा के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 48/2021) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. tsM-16025/04/2026-vkbZvkj(एम)-139]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 that
9720
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1896.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव वीृीआर माइसनग इंफ्रास्ट्रर्कचर प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मिानंि जगरी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 34/2025) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. tsM-16025/04/2026-vkbZvkj(एम)-140]
सलोनी, उ
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,
7237956974
……………Workman
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1897.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव वीृीआर माइसनग इंफ्रास्ट्रर्कचर प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रणिीत मद्धेजि ा के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 36/2025) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. tsM-16025/04/2026-vkbZvkj(एम)-142]
सलोनी, उ
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. Director
9722
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 29, 2026/ भाद्र 7, 1948
9723
नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1898.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मेससव वीृीआर माइसनग इंफ्रास्ट्रर्कचर प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री लव कुमार के बीच अनुबंि
में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 39/2025) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.08.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. tsM-16025/04/2026-vkbZvkj(एम)-143]
सलोनी, उ
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:-
9724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1899.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
मजससव भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और मिाराष्ट्र नवजनमावण बीमा कमवचारी सेना के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, मुंबई ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 28/2024) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
19 .08. 2026
को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. tsM-16025/04/2026-vkbZvkj(एम)-144]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 for
9726
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1900.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार मजससव भारती िीवन
बीमा जनगम के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और मिाराष्ट्र नवजनमावण बीमा कमवचारी सेना के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, मुंबई ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 01/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
19 .08. 2026
को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-17011/09/2022-vkbZvkj(,e)]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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:
9728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस्ट्त, 2026
का.आ. 1901.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
चेन्नई ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससव ग्लोबल एनवा रो जसस्ट्टम्स के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और सिि मजिूर
सभा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , चेन्नई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
3/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
19.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-30011/31/2022-vkbZ-vkj (एम)]
सलोनी, उ
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— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 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 Officer
9730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1902.— औद्योगगक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससस एनटीपीसी गलगमटेड, रामागुंडम के प्रबुंितुंत्र के सुंबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री के. श्रीपगत राि, एनटीपीसी मजिूर
यूगनयन (इुंटक) के बीच अनुबुंि में गनर्दिष्ट औद्योगगक गििाि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय
हैिराबाि, पुंचाट (आईडी नुंबर 120/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है।
[सुं. L-42011/124/2018-IR (DU)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1903.— औद्योगगक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केंरीय सरकार राष्ट्रीय
कृगि गिस्तार प्रबुंिन सुंस्थान (मैनेज) के प्रबुंितुंत्र के सुंबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री मोहम्मि इस्माइल और 12 कैजुअल लेबरसस के बीच
अनुबुंि में सुंलग्न औद्योगगक गििाि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पुंचाट (आईडी सुंख्या
55/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है।
[सुं. एल -42012/60/2017 - आई आर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1904.— औद्योगगक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससस स्पाकसल सर्विसेज; मेससस इुंगडयन इम्युनोलॉगजकल्स गलगमटेड के प्रबुंितुंत्र के सुंबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्रीमती िीगितुला
माििी के बीच अनुबुंि में गनर्दिष्ट औद्योगगक गििाि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय हैिराबाि,
पुंचाट (आईडी सुंख्या. 191/2025) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है।
[सुं. L-42025/07/2026/134-IR (DU)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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.
9734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1905.— औद्योगगक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससस िमास इुंजीगनयररग; मेससस लाससन एुंड टुब्रो गलगमटेड के प्रबुंितुंत्र के सुंबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री गुंडापु िेंकटेश्वर राि के
बीच अनुबुंि में गनर्दिष्ट औद्योगगक गििाि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पुंचाट
(आई डी नुंबर 51/2024) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है।
[सुं. एल-42025/07/2026/146- आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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.
…Respondents
Appearances:
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 20th 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1906.— औद्योगगक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससस गतरुमाला एुंटरप्राइजेज; एआईसीटीई के प्रबुंितुंत्र के सुंबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री गिगचत्र कुमार पररिा के बीच अनुबुंि
में गनर्दिष्ट औद्योगगक गििाि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय हैिराबाि, पुंचाट (आईडी नुंबर
5/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है।
[सुं. एल-42012/45/2017-आई आर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
9736
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9737
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1907.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्री कासूमाला बी
तुलसीराम ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] हैदराबाद ds iapkV (99/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y-12025/01/2026-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-183]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9739
(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 settlement
9740
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 temporary
9742
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9743
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.
9744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 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
9746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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--
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9747
(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
9748
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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
9750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9751
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
9752
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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9753
“ 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.
9754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1908.— औद्योगगक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
कोएगससयल मेंटेनेंस, बी एस एन एल, गििाखापत्तनम के प्रबुंि तुंत्र के सुंबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री के. नागेश्वर राि के बीच
अनुबुंि में गनर्दिष्ट औद्योगगक गििाि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पुंचाट (ID No.
15/2009) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है।
[सुं. एल -40012/177/1993-आई आर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 Officer
9756
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1909.— औद्योगगक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
बीएसएनएल, डबागाडसन्द्स, गििाखापत्तनम के प्रबुंि तुंत्र के सुंबद्ध गनयोजकों और भारतीय िूरसुंचार कमसचारी सुंघ
(बीएसएनएल) के बीच अनुबुंि में गनर्दिष्ट औद्योगगक गििाि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय,
हैिराबाि, पुंचाट (आईडी नुंबर. 26/2019) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागित करती है।
[सुं. एल-40011/11/2018- आई आर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9757
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1910.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्री चीकुडति रामबाबू ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] हैदराबाद
ds iapkV (116/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y-12025/01/2026-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-184]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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 Director
9758
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9759
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 under
9760
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 the
9762
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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.
9764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 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
9766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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--
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9767
(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.”
9768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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:-
9770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9771
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.
9772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1911.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्री च. एस. एस. सोभन
बाबू ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
हैदराबाद ds iapkV (120/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[l. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-185]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9775
(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 High
9776
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".
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9777
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 of
9778
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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?
9780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9781
“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.”
9782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9783
"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 Respondent
9784
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 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.”
9786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9787
(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.
9788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9789
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1912.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्रीमती एम. ब्रामाराम्बा ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] हैदराबाद ds iapkV (121/2003) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[la. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-186]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9791
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 said
9792
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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.
9794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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.
9796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9797
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 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
9798
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9799
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 that
9800
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 norms
9802
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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
9804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1913.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a213/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[l. ,y - 12012/391/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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:-
9806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1914.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a66/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/502/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 the
9808
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1915.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सह–Je U;k;ky;] हैिराबाि ds iapkV
(सन्दभि संख्या 11/2002) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[l- ,y-12012/247/2001-vkbZ-vkj-(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1916.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a14/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/289/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
9810
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9811
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1917.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सह–Je U;k;ky;] हैिराबाि ds iapkV
(सन्दभि संख्या 7/2002) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[la- ,y-12012/237/2001-vkbZ-vkj-(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
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.
[No. L-12012/237/2001- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Deputy Director
9812
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 6th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 7/2002
Between:
Sri T. Babu Rao,
C/o p. Ravi,
R/o D.No.36-5-27,
Woodpet Labbipet (PO),
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… Petitioner
AndThe 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-12012/237/2001-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 T. Babu Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 7/2002 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9813
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1918.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्री बी. श्रीडनवासा राओ
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
हैदराबाद ds iapkV (122/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y-12025/01/2026-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-187]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1918.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 122/2003) 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 B. Srinivasa Rao.
[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-187]
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.122/2003
Between:
Sri B. Srinivasa Rao,
S/o Subba Rao,
Botlavanipalem,
Tallapalem (Post),
Bandar Mandalam.
… Petitioner
And
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
9814
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
Sri B. Srinivasa Rao 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 Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9815
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 from 1984 to 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 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
9816
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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9817
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, 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.
9818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9819
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. Further 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, Kamalapuram branch in terminating the services of
Workman Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, 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.
9820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9821
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
9822
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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9823
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 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 December, 1984 he worked for 47 days with intermittent gaps.
Further, witness states that during the period after interview he worked from 1992 to 31.3.1997 for 665 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 continued to work as daily wager in the same
branch from 1997 till the date. 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
9824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that
no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the
very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has
indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect.
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent , I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9825
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
9826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9827
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
9828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 B. Srinivasa Rao, 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.
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: Sri B. Srinivasa Rao
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9829
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1919.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सह–Je U;k;ky;] हैिराबाि ds iapkV
(सन्दभि संख्या 8/2002) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[la- ,y-12012/238/2001-vkbZ-vkj-(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1919.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID.No.8/2002) 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-12012/238/2001- 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. 8/2002
Between:
Sri B. Adiseshudu,
Nayudupet,
Koduru (M & PO),
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… 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-12012/238/2001-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 B. Adiseshudu, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 8/2002 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.
9830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1920.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सह–Je U;k;ky;] हैिराबाि ds iapkV
(सन्दभि संख्या 5/2002) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[l- ,y-12012/226/2001-vkbZ-vkj-(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1920.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID.No.5/2002) 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-12012/226/2001- 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. 5/2002
Between:
Sri Konka Rama Rao,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9831
S/o Late Nancharayya,
C/o S.A. Raju,
R/o 17th ward, Dakshin Telugu palem,
Pedana,
Krishna Dist. -521366.
… 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-12012/226/2001-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 K. Rama Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 5/2002 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
9832
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, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1921.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सह–Je U;k;ky;] हैिराबाि ds
iapkV (सन्दभि संख्या 26/2002) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[la- ,y-12012/258/2002-vkbZ-vkj-(बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1921.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID.No.26/2002) 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-12012/258/2002- 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. 26/2002
Between:
Sri K.V. Subba Rao,
C/o K. Nageswara Rao,
State Bank of India,
Gannavaram,
Krishna Dist.-521101.
… 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9833
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-12012/258/2001-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, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the
services of Sri K.V. Subba Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 26/2002 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1922.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a16/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/308/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
9834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1922.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.16/2001) 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-12012/308/2000- 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. 16/2001
Between:
Sri P. Rasool Khan,
C/o Istamasetty Veeraswamy,
Opp. Hanumantha Rao School,
Ganji palem,
Chirala – 523155.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region-II,
Tirupathi 517501.
…..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-12012/308/2000-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 Sri P. Rasool Khan, Ex-Messenger, by way of oral orders with effect from 31.03.1997 is justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 16/2001 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.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9835
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1923.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a121/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/297/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1923.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.121/2001) 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-12012/297/2000- 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. 121/2001
Between:
Sri D. Ramaiah,
S/o Balaiah,
Gandhi Kshetram (PO),
9836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Avanigadda ward,
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… 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-12012/297/2000-IR(B.I) dated 24.04.2001,
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 Sri D. Ramaiah, Ex-Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.03.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 121/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9837
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1924.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्री एम.पी. राजू ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] हैदराबाद
ds iapkV (131/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-190]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1924.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 131/2003) 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 M.P. Raju.
[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-190]
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.131 /2003
Between:
Sri M.P. Raju,
S/o Bhasker Rao Parasa,
Mopidevi Mandal,
Mopedevi Post,
Krishna distt.
… Petitioner
And
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Vijayawada.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
9838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the Petitioner :
Sri B. Vikas, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri M.P. Raju 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 Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated
20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,
the he joined the service of the Respondent Bank as a messenger from 1988 to 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9839
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 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
9840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9841
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, 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
9842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9843
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 W3. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the service certificate. Further Ex.W2 and Ex.w3 are service certificates.
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, Mopidevi branch in terminating the services of Workman
Sri M.P. Raju, 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
9844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9845
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 .
9846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27.
Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his
services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25
F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
28.
On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any
preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman
has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent
on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman
on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;
(2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of
termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by
adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in 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."
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9847
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 Mopidevi branch of State Bank of India for the first time without any written appointment order.
Further, witness states that during the period from 1988 worked for 166 days before interview with intermittent gaps.
Further, witness states that during the period after interview, he is working till date, but he was not issued any written
order of removal. He did not give any representation to the bank and he continued to work as daily wager in the same
branch from 1997 till the date. 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.
9848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent , I find the force in the
argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order
dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there
was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent .
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9849
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
9850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9851
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
9852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 M.P. Raju, 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 6th day of July, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri M.P. Raju
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of service certificate
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9853
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1925.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्री इनती नागाराजू ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] हैदराबाद
ds iapkV (123/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-188]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1925.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 123/2003) 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 Inti Nagaraju.
[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-188]
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.123/2003
Between:
Sri Inti Nagaraju
S/o I Kanakayya,
Pedda Reddli Street,
Palakonda Road,
D.No.4-1-90
Post & Dist. Srikakulam-532001.
… Petitioner
And
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri B. Vikas, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Inti Nagaraju 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/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
9854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 18.8.1983 to 1997, and has
rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 14 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9855
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 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
9856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9857
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
9858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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."
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9859
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 W3. 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. Ex.W3 is the panel list.
21.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri C.R.M. Sastry and this witness has exhibited
2 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M2. The details of these documents are as follows:-
Ex.M.1 is the working days particulars of workman. Ex.M2 is the printed book containing settlement between the
staff federation and Management for regularization of services of the temporary employees and casual employees.
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 Sri Inti
Nagaraju, 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.
9860
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9861
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
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:-
9862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9863
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., 1.4.1997. The
witness WW1 in chief examination has stated that he had worked for 50 days in the said branch in the year 1983.
Further, witness states, “I have worked for 656 days during in the bank and for which the service certificates are
enclosed. I have been not given more than 200 days in any calendar year inspite of heavy work load and just to
avoid us to get regularised. The bank calculations of ½ and 3/4 days are wrong. This squarely an unfair labour
practice.” As per provision contained u/s.25 F read with Sec.25 B of I.D.Act, 1947, the Petitioner has to adduce
the evidence of continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e.,
1.4.1997. But as per the chief statement of witness WW1, he had worked continuously for 50 days in the branch in
the year 1983. Further, Petitioner witness has not adduced any evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in a calendar year of 12 months just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 1.4.1997. However,
the documents in evidence filed by the Petitioner do not corroborate the averment of the claim statement as these
documents are not exhibited or proved by the statement of WW1 or any other witness’s evidence. Therefore, the
claim of the Petitioner that he has been terminated in contravention of provision contained under section 25 F of the
Act is not corroborated by his oral or documentary evidence. 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/
9864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination.
Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240
days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.
32.
Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of
India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised
by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily
wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary
appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make
temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been
terminated from service by this order.
33.
Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in
respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any
temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no
temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any
deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been
terminated from service by this order.
34.
Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by
DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has
been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent
is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager
for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for
engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work
from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon
the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent
management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank
cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory
condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the
disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and
25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent.
35.
Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the
selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements
and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in
the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management
has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but
same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure
of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the
Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month
of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating
the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued
are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but
not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular
vacancies.
36.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary
employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was
arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the
Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would
be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from
both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute
is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed
between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9865
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
9866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
Moreover, the Respondent management witness MW1 in chief statement has given the evidence that, “It is
not true to say that bank has removed the Workman from service by taking care to see that he did not complete 240
days of the service continuously within a period of 12 months. The engagement of the service of the workmen was
need based and there is no continuous availability of leave vacancies for engaging his services.” Although this
witness was cross examined by the Petitioner but the above statement of the management witness in chief remained
uncontroverted, as the witness MW1 was not cross examined by Petitioner on this point. Therefore, the claim of the
Petitioner that he has been removed from service by the management illegally is untenable. Further, witness MW1
in his chief statement has stated that, the workman was engaged in leave vacancies in the bank on Temporary basis.
This witness has categorically stated that, “The last person whose services was regularised has completed 97 days of
employment during the crucial period as per settlement whereas the Workman herein worked for 63 days during that
period.” This statement of witness MW1 remained uncontroverted as the Petitioner did not cross examine the witness
MW1 on this point. Therefore, the Petitioner Workman as per number of working days, failed to fulfil eligibility
criteria of working days as required for regularisation. Therefore, he was not given regularisation in the employment
of the Respondent. Moreover, the Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has admitted the fact that he do
not know whether any junior to him in 1989 panel were regularised in the services. Further, WW1 states that he do
not know particulars of the settlement reached between the management and staff union. Therefore, in view of the
statement of WW1 in cross examination, the claim of the Petitioner that he was refused regularization by the
Respondent management illegally, is untenable. 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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9867
(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
9868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9869
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 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 and Ex.M2 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 Inti Nagaraju, 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: Sri Inti Nagaraju
MW1: Sri C.R.M. Sastry
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of interview call letter
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of Panel list
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of statement showing no. of working days of Petitioner
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of printed book containing settlement between the staff federation and Management for
regularization of services of the temporary employees and casual employees.
9870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1926.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a212/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/381/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1926.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.212/2002) 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-12012/381/2000- 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. 212/2002
Between:
Sri B.V. Ramana Rao,
Near Bharat Talkies, Rajaka Street,
H.No. 20-30, Nandigama,
Krishna Dist.-521101.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region II,
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-12012/381/2000-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, Vijaywada Zone in dismissing the services
of Sri B.V. Ramana Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 212/2002 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9871
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1927.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a235/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/435/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1927.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.235/2002) 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-12012/435/2001- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Deputy Director
9872
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 6th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 235/2002
Between:
Sri M. Giridhari Singh,
R/o H.No. 4-4-995,
Nehru Nagar,
Tirupathi – 507501.
Chittor District.
… 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 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-12012/435/2001-IR(B.I) dated 4.4.2002, 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 M. Giridhari Singh, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 235/2002 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9873
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1928.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds
vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds
deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (a120/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/296/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1928.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.120/2001) 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-12012/296/2000- 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. 120/2001
Between:
Sri V. Vara Prasada Rao,
S/o V. Venkataswamy,
5th ward,
C/o Lamkamma Temple,
Avanigadda Post,
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
9874
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-12012/296/2000-IR(B.I) dated 7.08.2001, 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 Sri V. Vera Prasad, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 120/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9875
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1929.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्रीमती कोटयादा गौवरी
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
हैदराबाद ds iapkV (124/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-189]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1929.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 124/2003) 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. Kotyada Gowri.
[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-189]
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.124/2003
Between:
Smt. Kotyada Gowri
W/o Meera Swamy,
S. Kota, Kapu Chakali Street,
S. Kota post (Mandal)
Vizianagaram Dist.
… Petitioner
And
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri B. Vikas, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Smt. Kotyada Gowri 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/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
9876
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Messenger from 7.7.1987 to 1997, and has
rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9877
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 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.
9878
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9879
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
9880
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9881
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 no documents in evidence were
filed by the Petitioner.
21.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri C.R.M. Sastry and this witness has exhibited
2 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M2. The details of these documents are as follows:-
Ex.M.1 is the working days particulars of workman. Ex.M2 is the printed book containing settlement between the
staff federation and Management for regularization of services of the temporary employees and casual employees.
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. Kotyada
Gowri, 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
9882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9883
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 she 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 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 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—
9884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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"
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9885
“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 her initial burden of proof in respect of her claim of 240
days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination i.e., 1.4.1997. The
witness WW1 in chief examination has stated that she had worked for 40 days in the said branch in the year 1987.
Further, witness states, “I have worked for 725 days during in the bank and for which the service certificates are
enclosed. I have been not given more than 200 days in any calendar year inspite of heavy work load and just to
avoid us to get regularised. The bank calculations of ½ and 3/4 days are wrong. This squarely an unfair labour
practice.” As per provision contained u/s.25 F read with Sec.25 B of I.D.Act, 1947, the Petitioner has to adduce
the evidence of continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination i.e.,
1.4.1997. But as per the chief statement of witness WW1, she had worked continuously for 40 days in the branch in
the year 1987. Further, Petitioner witness has not adduced any evidence that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in a calendar year of 12 months just preceding from the date of her termination i.e., 1.4.1997. However,
the documents in evidence filed by the Petitioner do not corroborate the averment of the claim statement as these
documents are not exhibited or proved by the statement of WW1 or any other witness’s evidence. Therefore, the
claim of the Petitioner that she has been terminated in contravention of provision contained under section 25 F of the
Act is not corroborated by her oral or documentary evidence. 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 her termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish her plea by her oral and
documentary evidence that she had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of
her termination i.e., 1.4.1997. Thus, the claim of the Workman that she 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 no documents filed by the Workman in support of her claim, number of days worked with
the Respondent, goes to show 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 her 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 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., 31.3.1997.
9886
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 she 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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9887
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.
9888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
39.
Moreover, the Respondent management witness MW1 in chief statement has given the evidence that, “It is
not true to say that bank has removed the Workman from service by taking care to see that she did not complete 240
days of the service continuously within a period of 12 months. The engagement of the service of the workmen was
need based and there is no continuous availability of leave vacancies for engaging his services.” Although this
witness was cross examined by the Petitioner but the above statement of the management witness in chief remained
uncontroverted, as the witness MW1 was not cross examined by Petitioner on this point. Therefore, the claim of the
Petitioner that she has been removed from service by the management illegally is untenable. Further, witness MW1
in his chief statement has stated that, the workman was engaged in leave vacancies in the bank on Temporary basis.
This witness has categorically stated that, “The last person whose services was regularised has completed 78 days of
employment during the crucial period as per settlement whereas the Workman herein worked for 21 days during that
period.” This statement of witness MW1 remained uncontroverted as the Petitioner did not cross examine the witness
MW1 on this point. Therefore, the Petitioner Workman as per number of working days, failed to fulfil eligibility
criteria of working days as required for regularisation. Therefore, she was not given regularisation in the
employment of the Respondent. Moreover, the Workman witness WW1 in her cross examination has admitted the
fact that she do not know whether any junior to her in 1989 panel were regularised in the services. Further, WW1
states that she do not know particulars of the settlement reached between the management and staff union. Therefore,
in view of the statement of WW1 in cross examination, the claim of the Petitioner that she was refused regularization
by the Respondent management illegally, is untenable. 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 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
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;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9889
(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
9890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9891
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 she 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 Ex.M1 and Ex.M2 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 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 she 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. Kotyada Gowri, 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. Kotyada Gowri
MW1: Sri C.R.M. Sastry
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photocopy of statement showing no. of working days of Petitioner
Ex.M2:
Photocopy of printed book containing settlement between the staff federation and Management for
regularization of services of the temporary employees and casual employees.
9892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1930.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्री वाय. सैम सोनाइअह
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
हैदराबाद ds iapkV (139/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y-12025/01/2026-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-192]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1930.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 139/2003) 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 Y. Sam Sonaiah.
[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-192]
SALONI, Deputy Director
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 7th day of July, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.139/2003
Between:
Sri Y. Sam Sonaiah,
S/o Y. Jayapal,
No.7/199, Jayanagar Colony,
Cuddapah.
… Petitioner
And
The Chief General Manager,
(Personnel),
State Bank of India,
LHO, Bank Street,
Hyderabad.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Y. Sam Sonaiah 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9893
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 Tribuna!;
(2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated:
(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit
of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,
(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”
Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch
cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the
aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement
dated 20.3.019.
3.
The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that,
the he joined the service of the Respondent Bank as a messenger from 1989 to 1997. Thereby he worked for about 8
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
9894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9895
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
9896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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, 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,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9897
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
9898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights
have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation
being violated.
19.
Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was
filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed
Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements
cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play.
Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High
Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.
20.
In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W5. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
his claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 is the service certificate. Further Ex.W2 is the interview call letter. Ex.W3 is the service certificate. Ex.W4
is the study certificate. Ex.W5 is the caste, nativity and DOB 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, Kavali branch, in terminating the services of Workman
Sri Y. Sam Sonaiah, 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:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9899
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.”
9900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or
coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on
the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947.
But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into
between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred
to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the
parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.
Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322,
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding
at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel
that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is,
rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the
company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in
scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had
been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the
settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach.
“When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is
not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union,
which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour.
This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of
mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the
President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of
collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration.
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 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9901
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
9902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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..”
“I can not produce any certificate to show that I worked for 240 days of service.”
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 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 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9903
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
9904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9905
39.
Moreover, the Respondent management witness MW1 in chief statement has given the evidence that, “The
Petitioner did not work continuously for 240 days in any year or over a period of 36 months.” Although this witness
was cross examined by the Petitioner but the above statement of the management witness in chief remained
uncontroverted, as the witness MW1 was not cross examined by Petitioner on this point. Therefore, the claim of the
Petitioner that he has been removed from service by the management illegally is untenable. Further, witness MW1
in his chief statement has stated that, the workman was engaged in leave vacancies in the bank on Temporary basis.
This witness has categorically stated that, “The Petitioner appointed as temporary messenger now and then on the
oral instructions of the BranManager. The temporary messengers and non-messengers were engaged by the bank in
leave vacancies and for administrative exigencies.” This statement of witness MW1 remained uncontroverted as the
Petitioner did not cross examine the witness MW1 on this point. Therefore, the Petitioner Workman as per number
of working days, failed to fulfil eligibility criteria of working days as required for regularisation. Therefore, he was
not given regularisation in the employment of the Respondent. Further, WW1 states that he do not know particulars
of the settlement reached between the management and staff union. Therefore, in view of the statement of WW1 in
cross examination, the claim of the Petitioner that he was refused regularization by the Respondent management
illegally, is untenable.
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
9906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9907
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.
9908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Y. Sam Sonaiah, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 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 7th day of July, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Y. Sam Sonaiah
MW1: Sri I.S. Appa Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of interview call letter
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of study certificate caste certificate
Ex.W5:
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9909
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1931.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कर्मकार श्रीमती ए. महेंद्र मडि ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] हैदराबाद
ds iapkV (132/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y-12025/01/2026-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-191]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1931.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 132/2003) 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 A. Mahendra Mani.
[No. L-12025/01/2026-IR(B-I)-191]
SALONI, Deputy Director
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: -
Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 7th day of July, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.132/2003
Between:
Smt A. Mahendra Mani,
D/o A. Mamelama,
10 anega Parmeshwari Temple,
Gudur Mandal.
Pedana,.
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
Smt. A. Mahendra Mani 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
9910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 1988 and she worked upto 1.4.1997.
Thereby he worked for about 12 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9911
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 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
9912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9913
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
9914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9915
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 W3. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of
her claim which are discussed as under:-
Ex.W1 to Ex.W3 are the service certificates.
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. A.
Mahendra Mani, 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
9916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9917
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 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 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:-
9918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9919
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.
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 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., 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 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 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
9920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9921
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.
In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross
examination the witness WW1 states:-
“I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union in the
year 1989…..
9922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The panel was prepared basing upon the number of days of service, put in by the temporary employees. Some of the
temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of
their seniority in the panel……
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 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9923
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
9924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. A. Mahendra Mani, 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 7th day of July, 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Smt. A. Mahendra Mani
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9925
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of service certificate
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1932.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a24/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/256/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1932.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.24/2002) 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-12012/256/2000- 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. 24/2002
Between:
Sri K. Paul Raju,
S/o Nageswara Rao,
Chinaprathipudu(V),
Peddapalaparu Post,
Mudinepally(M),
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… 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
9926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-12012/256/2001-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, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the
services of Sri K. Paul Raju, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 24/2002 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1933.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a117/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/292/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9927
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1933.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.117/2001) 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-12012/292/2000- 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. 117/2001
Between:
Sri Bandala Anjayya,
S/o M. Subba Rao,
P.W.D. (Lock),
Vuyyuru.
Krishna dist. -521136
… 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-12012/292/2000-IR(B.I) dated 26.4.2001, 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 Sri Bandala Anjayya, Ex-Messenger, by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 117/2001 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.
9928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1934.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a116/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/291/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1934.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.116/2001) 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-12012/291/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Deputy Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9929
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. 116/2001
Between:
Sri Madda Venkateswara Rao,
S/o M. Subba Rao,
P.W.D. (Lock),
Vuyyuru.
Krishna dist. -521136
… 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-12012/291/2000-IR(B.I) dated 26.4.2001, 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 Sri Madda Venkateswara Rao, Ex-Messenger, by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 116/2001 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.
9930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1935.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a70/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y- 12012/506/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1935.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.70/2001) 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-12012/506/2000- 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. 70/2001
Between:
Sri M. Kameswara Rao,
China Govu, Durganagar,
Kuchipudi Movva(M),
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9931
Krishna dist. -521136
… 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-12012/506/2000-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 Sri M. Kameswara Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 70/2001 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
9932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1936.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a61/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/496/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1936.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.61/2001) 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-12012/496/2000- 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. 61/2001
Between:
Sri J. Subramanyeswara Rao,
S/o J. Veeraswamy, Yaddanapudi &
Post Movva Mandalam
Krishna Dist.-521136.
… 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-12012/496/2000-IR(B.I) dated 26.6.2001, 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 Sri J. Subramanyeswara Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 61/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9933
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1937.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a62/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y- 12012/497/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1937.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.62/2001) 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-12012/497/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Deputy Director
9934
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 6th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 62/2001
Between:
Sri Neelam Gandhi Prasad,
S/o Mariyanna,
R/o. Pittalavani palem P.O. & Mandal,
Guntur Dist. 522 329 A.P
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region-II, Labbipeta,
Vijayawada.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri
Macharla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/497/2000-IR (B.I) dated
26.06.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to this Tribunal requiring this
forum to decide the question:
THE SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing services of
Sri Neelam Gandhi Prasad Ex-Messenger is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 62/2001 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9935
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1938.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a65/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y- 12012/501/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th August, 2026
S.O. 1938.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.65/2001) 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-12012/501/2000- 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. 65/2001
Between:
Sri P. Janardhana Rao
S/o Late P. Sreeramulu,
Yaddanapudi &
Post Movva Mandalam
Krishna Dist.-521136.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
9936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-12012/501/2000-IR(B.I) dated 20.6.2001, 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 Sri P. Janardhana Rao Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 65/2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9937
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1939.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a137/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/364/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1939.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.137/2001) 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-12012/364/2000- 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. 137/2001
Between:
Sri Jonnada Prasad,
S/o J. Narayana Rao,
Putrela(PO),
Vissannapet(M),
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region II,
Labbipet,
Vijayawada -520 004.
…..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-12012/364/2000-IR(B.I) dated 09.05.2001,
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, Vijaywada Zone in dismissing the services
of Sri Jonnada Prasad, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
9938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 137/2001 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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1940.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a136/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/363/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1940.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.136/2001) 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-12012/363/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Deputy Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9939
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. 136/2001
Between:
Sri M. Nagabhushana Rao,
S/o M. Pedagallu,
Kuchipudi(PO),
Movva(M),
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region II,
Labbipet,
Vijayawada -520 004.
…..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-12012/363/2000-IR(B.I) dated 09.05.2001,
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, Vijaywada Zone in dismissing the services
of Sri M. Nagabhushana Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 136/2001 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.
9940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1941.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a123/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/304/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2026
S.O. 1941.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.123/2001) 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-12012/304/2000- 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. 123/2001
Between:
Sri R. Babuji,
S/o R. Raghavulu,
18-01-223, Ashok Nagar,
Tirupathi. 517-501.
… 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9941
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-12012/304/2000-IR(B.I) dated 24.04.2001,
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, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services of
Sri R. Babuji, Ex-Temporary Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f 31.03.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 123/2001 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, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1942.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य गनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सह
–
Je U;k;ky;]
चेन्नई ds iapkV (सन्द्िभस संख्या 15/2017) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[la- ,y- 22011/11/2016-vkbZ-vkj-(lh-एर्-II)]
जयिीप यािि, उप गिदेशक
9942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1942.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.15/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, CHANNAI as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food
Corporations of India and their workmen.
[No. L-22011/11/2016 – IR (CM-II)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Deputy Director
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 15/2017
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 03-08-2026
The General Secretary,
Food Corporation of
India Workers Union,
No.58/1, Diamond Harbour Road,
Kalkatta- 700 023
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager (TN),
Food Corporation of India,
Regional Office,
No.8, Mayor Sathyamoorthy Road,
Chetpet,
Chennai – 600 031
:
2nd Party / 1st Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Sh.I.Selvaraj,
Authorised Representative
For the 2nd Party / Respondent
:
M/s Imthias, Adv
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order No. L-22011/11/2016-IR
(CM-II), dated 08.03.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Chennai and Food Corporation of India as whole, in
not extending medical facilities to DPS/casual workers, and throwing a part of them to subscribe to ESIC leaving a
majority of workmen uncovered by any medical assistance, are justified? If not, as to what relief these DPS/casual
workers are entitled to?’’
ID 15/2017
2.
Onreceipt of the above reference dated 08.03.2017 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 15/2017 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
04.04.2017 / 02.06.2025 (after disposed of WP No.8828 of 2018). .Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel /
Authorized Representative turned up resulting further adjournments to 14.10.2025, 09.12.2025, 16.02.2026,
05.05.2026 and 13.07.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up. It reveals from the body of reference that while the
appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 08.03.2017 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 03.08.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up nor was any authorized representative of the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9943
counsel on his behalf present. The claim statement was not furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. It reveals the
Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose 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 Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1943.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj बीसीसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
-
सह
-
Je U;k;ky;] धिबाद-I, ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57/2015) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
[la- ,y-12012/123/2015-vkbZ vkj-(lh-एर्-II)]
जयिीप यािि, उप गिदेशक
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1943.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BCCL. and their workmen.
[No. L-20012/123/2015– IR (CM-I)]
JAIDEEP YADAV, Deputy Director
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. 57/2015
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Area
Of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
AND
Their Workman
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :-Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate
For the workmen :-Sri Pintu Mandal, Advocate
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 03/08/2026
9944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-
20012/123/2015-IR(CM-I) dated 03/11/2015 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e.
management of Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad and their workman through Secretary, Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor
Union, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Lodna Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing, Shri Anil
Kumar Paswan, Ex-SDL Mazdoor, Pers No. 02835957 from the services of the company vide order dated
03.07.2010 is justified and fair? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
2. The case of the workman as per the written statement filed on his behalf is that Sri Anil Kumar Paswan was
a permanent employee of Lodna Colliery working as SDL Mazdoor and keeping unblemished record of service who
was falsely implicated in a criminal case and was sent in jail custody w.e.f. 27.07.2006 to 07.02.2014. The wife of
Anil Kumar Paswan informed the management that her husband Anil Kumar Paswan is in jail custody since
27.07.2006. As per the Circular of the management if a workman is in jail custody in connection with criminal case he
is liable for suspension during the period he is in jail custody. Although the management was having full knowledge
that the workman concerned is in jail custody even then the management has not suspended him just to deprive him
from the subsistence allowance. Despite the knowledge of jail custody of the workman, charge sheet was issued
against him which was received by his wife. After receiving the same his wife requested the management not to take
any disciplinary action against him till he is in jail custody. Without serving chargesheet to the workman concerned the
management conducted ex-parte enquiry and dismissed him vide dismissal letter dated 24.06/03.07.2010 for
unauthorized absence. After release from the jail custody Anil Kumar Paswan reported for duty but he was not allowed
to resume his duty as such he raised industrial dispute through the union but the conciliation proceeding was ended in
failure that led to reference of this case. The workman concerned never absented from his duty unauthorisedly,
actually he was in jail custody and due to the same he was prevented from attending his duty as it was beyond his
control. He has not committed any misconduct. He was never served any charge sheet. The report of the Enquiry
Officer is perverse. The enquiry conducted is not fair and proper and not as per the Principle of Natural Justice so the
dismissal of the workman is liable to be set aside and at last it was prayed to reinstate the workman with full back
wages.
3. On the other hand the case of the management as per the written statement cum rejoinder filed on its behalf
is that Sri Anil Kumar Paswan, Ex-SDL Mazdoor of Lodna Colliery had been absenting unauthorizedly from the
services of the company w.e.f. 24.07.2006. A charge sheet was issued against him vide No. 116 dated 31.12.2007
under clause 26.1.1 of the provision of the Certified Standing Orders of the company and he was allowed 7 days time
to submit his written explanation and the charge sheet was sent at his permanent address too by Regd. Post but his wife
Smt. Pinki Devi intimated that her husband is in jail. The Disciplinary Authority had got the matter enquired by
appointing the Enquiry Officer and the M.R. The notices were issue to the above named workman for appearance and
his wife was also given opportunity to produce papers regarding the above matter about his being in jail custody. The
Central Jail, Dhanbad was also approached about the position of the above named workman and the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Dhanbad vide his letter No. 767 dated 26.04.2010 had intimated to the Project Officer, Lodna Colliery
that the workman has been convicted in GR Case No. 1362/99 under Section 452, 302, 149, 307, 148, 325, 323 for life
imprisonment by the court of Addl. Session Judge FTC II on 27.07.2006 and presently he is in the Jail Custody as
convict. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer held the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report. The Second Show Cause
Notice vide No. 776 dated 11/19.06.2010 allowing 7 days time for submitting reply was also sent. The matter was
considered and the Disciplinary Authority had decided to dismiss the workman concerned and dismissal order was
passed vide letter No. 89 dated 24.06/08.07.2016. This industrial dispute was raised and reply to the same was
submitted before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Dhanbad. The conciliation was held but the same ended in
failure that led to the reference of this case. On the basis of the proved misconduct and also that he was convicted in
the criminal case for life imprisonment it is felt that the action of the management is just, fair and proper in dismissing
the concerned employee. In case the enquiry is found not fair and proper, the management may be allowed to lead the
evidence to prove his case and submit documents. By way of rejoinder the stand taken by the workman has been
denied and the action of the management in holding enquiry and dismissal of the workman has been submitted to be
fair and reasonable.
4. The workman has also filed a separate rejoinder dated 15.07.2016 to the W/S of the management in which
at the very beginning the stand taken by the management has been denied by the workman submitting that the
management has not issued any charge sheet under Clause 26.1.19 of the Certified Standing Orders and the enquiry of
the Enquiry Officer is perverse as he was having full knowledge that the workman was in jail custody and he was not
attending duty the same being beyond his control.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9945
5. Issue
“Whether the action of the management of Lodna Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing, Shri Anil Kumar
Paswan, Ex-SDL Mazdoor, Pers No. 02835957 from the services of the company vide order dated 03.07.2010 is
justified and fair? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
6. It is relevant to mention that on the preliminary point the management examined MW-1 Jogendra Kumar
Biruli and got exhibited the following documents:
Exhibit M-1 – Copy of Charge Sheet dated 31.12.2006
Exhibit M-2 – Copy of Reply to the Charge Sheet
Exhibit M-3 – Copy of Office Order dated 20.01.2009 appointing the E.O. and M.R
Exhibit M-4 Series – Copy of Notice of Enquiry dated 28.01.2009 and 09.04.2009
Exhibit M-5 – Copy of Application of Smt. Pinki Devi received on 11.02.2009
Exhibit M-6 – Copy of Enquiry Proceedings
Exhibit M-7 – Copy of Note Sheet dated 06/08.05.2009
Exhibit M-8 – Copy of Letter dated 26.04.2010 from the Superintendent Central Jail, Dhanbad
Exhibit M-9 – Copy of Note Sheet dated 26.02.2010
Exhibit M-10 – Copy of Second Show Cause Notice
Exhibit M-11 – Copy of Letter dated 15.04.2010 from P.O., Lodna Colliery to the Jail Superintendent,
Dhanbad.
7. The workman also examined WW-1 Anil Kumar Paswan.
8. After hearing both sides on the preliminary point the enquiry proceeding conducted Ex-parte was held as
not fair the same being against the Principles of Natural Justice.
9. Thereafter the management was provided opportunities to adduce evidence to prove his case and in
furtherance of the same the management examined MW-2 Abhijeet Kumar.
10. The workman again examined himself and got exhibited the following documents.
Exhibit W-1 – Photo copy of Identity Card issued by the BCCL
Exhibit W-2 – Copy of Charge sheet dated 31.12.2006
Exhibit W-3 – Intimation by his wife Smt. Pinki Devi dated 09.02.2009
Exhibit W-4 – Copy of dismissal order dated 24.06.2010
Exhibit W-5 – Copy of application of rejoining dated 31.01.2015
Exhibit W-6 – Copy of Letter dated 11.03.2014 issued from Office Superintendent L.J.N, Central Jail,
Hazaribagh
Exhibit W-7 – Application dated 13.02.2015 given by the concerned workman for rejoining
Exhibit W-8 – Copy of Judgment and Order of conviction in ST No. 167 of 2000 dated 24.07.2006
Exhibit W-9 – Copy of Certified Standing Orders
Exhibit W-10 – Copy of I.D. Card
11. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
12. The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the workman has submitted that the workman was a permanent employee of
BCCL and on 24.07.2006 he remained absent from his duty because in a family dispute he was falsely sent to jail and
he remained in jail custody from 27.07.2006 to 07.02.2014. His wife had given information of his being in jail custody
to the BCCL management and despite that he was illegally charge sheeted on 31.12.2006 that was not received by the
workman though his wife Pinki Devi gave written reply on 15.01.2007 to the management informing that he was
detained in Dhanbad Jail in a family dispute and after being acquitted from the same he would return to this duty.
Again on 09.02.2009 his wife gave information regarding his jail custody to the management but the enquiry was not
deferred. He has neither received any charge sheet nor notice of enquiry nor an opportunity to defend his case which is
against the principles of natural justice and on 24.06.2010 he was illegally dismissed from his service which is against
the provisions of Certified standing Order. He was not absent deliberately rather he was in jail custody and therefore
the charge of unauthorized absence is not proved. Against the conviction he has preferred appeal wherefrom he has
9946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
been bailed out. He has not committed any misconduct. It was further submitted that the workman’s dismissal is illegal
because he was appointed by the General manager whereas he was dismissed by the project officer who is lower in
rank and prayed to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate his service without back wages.
13. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the management has submitted that the workman had
become disentitled to continue in service because of his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. The conviction
of life imprisonment itself constitutes independent misconduct. Once the fact of conviction came to the knowledge of
the management through the Jail Superintendent the employer was empowered to terminate his services under clause
26.1.19 of the Certified Standing Order and for that separate domestic enquiry is not necessary. The employer is not
expected to keep a convicted employee. Release on bail does not wipe out the conviction unless conviction itself is set
aside by the Appellate Court. It has further been submitted that the conviction and sentence are undisputed. Hence,
absence of separate charge sheet under clause 26.1.19 is not fatal. Conviction for serious criminal offence for life
imprisonment destroys confidence and employer cannot be compelled to retain such employee. The misconduct
against the workman is well proved and the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the workman
is quite in accordance with law and prayed to answer the reference accordingly.
14. As the enquiry has already been held as unfair due to being held in absence of the workman Ex-parte, this
is the duty of the management to prove his case by independent and additional evidence by way of de novo trial and in
that sequence the management has examined MW Abhijeet Kumar on 18.12.25 who has appeared before the Court to
adduce his evidence on the basis of the perusal of the office record and in his examination- in- chief he has admitted
that Anil Kumar Paswan was working as SDL Mazdoor and he was issued charge sheet vide letter dated 24.07.2006
for being absent without information to which the reply was given by his wife and she had informed that her husband
was in jail custody. Management had written letter to the Dhanbad Jailer who had given reply intimating reason and
charges for his jail detention. He has further stated that if a workman is found guilty that comes under the category of
serious misconduct and if he is serving the life imprisonment, he need not continue in the company and after receiving
the information he was immediately dismissed from his service. In cross-examination he has admitted that he has no
personal knowledge of this case because he was not in job at that time. The workman Anil Kumar Paswan was
appointed by General Manager but he was dismissed by Project Manager. General Manager’s rank is higher to that of
the Project Manager. He does not remember if the charge sheet issued against him had mentioned regarding the
criminal case or not.
15. Besides this oral evidence the management has not adduced any documentary independent or additional
evidence to prove the charges against the workman.
16. On the other hand the workman Anil Kumar Paswan has examined himself on 1.04.26 as WW in support
of his case in which he has detailed his case and admitted that he was a permanent employee of BCCL and on
24.07.2006 he remained absent from his duty because in a family dispute he was falsely sent to jail and he remained in
jail custody from 27.07.2006 to 07.02.2014. His wife had given information of his being in jail custody to the BCCL
management and despite that information he was illegally charge sheeted on 31.12.2006 that was not received by him
though his wife Pinki Devi gave written reply on 15.01.2007 to the management informing that he was detained in
Dhanbad Jail in a family dispute and after being acquitted from the same he would return to this duty. Again on
09.02.2009 his wife gave information regarding his jail custody to the management but the enquiry was not deferred.
He has neither received any charge sheet nor notice of enquiry nor an opportunity to present his case which is against
the natural justice and on 24.06.2010 he was illegally dismissed from his service by the project officer who is not the
disciplinary authority under the provisions of Certified standing Order. He was not absent deliberately rather he was in
jail custody whereas he was charge sheeted under clause 26.1.1 for being absent from duty. He was not charge sheeted
for conviction so his dismissal on that ground is illegal. Against the conviction he has preferred appeal where from he
has been bailed out. He has not committed any misconduct and prayed to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate his
service. He has also submitted documents that were marked Ext.W-1 to Ext.W-10. In cross-examination he has stated
that on 24.07.2006 he was absent from his duty without taking any leave for which the company had issued charge
sheet against him. He had not given any reply of the same but his wife had given reply of the same by writing a letter
to the management on 15.01.2007 that her husband was in jail custody. Thereafter BCCL had given notice of enquiry
for 28.0102009 that was received by his wife. Then on 9.02.2009 she again gave a letter to management that her
husband was in jail custody but reason and period was not mentioned therein. He was convicted under section 302
IPC. He was on bail and appeal is pending.
17. The workman has also submitted the documentary evidence out of which Exhibit W-1 and Exhibit W-
10 both are the copies of Identity Card issued in the name of the workman Anil Kumar Paswan by the BCCL, Lodna
Area. Exhibit W-2 is the copy of charge sheet dated 31.12.2006 in which the workman has been issued the charge
sheet under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order for misconduct ie habitual late attendance or willful or
habitual absence from the duty without sufficient cause and this also contains the attendance of the previous 3 years
i.e. 2005, 2004 and 2003 but in none of these years any absence or punishment is reported/recorded against the
workman. Exhibit W-3 is the letter given by his wife Pinki Devi dated 09.02.2009 that has been submitted before the
Enquiry Officer in reply to the charge sheet informing that she had already informed in writing on 15.01.2007
regarding her husband and requested to stay the proceeding till final judgment. Exhibit W-4 is the dismissal letter
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9947
dated 24.06/03.07.2010 passed by the Project Officer, Lodna Colliery which says that the workman was absenting
since 24.07.2006 unauthorizedly and without information or satisfactory reason and consequently vide order dated
31.12.2006 charge sheet was issued against him by Manager, Lodna Colliery that was sent at his permanent address
through registered post and reply of the same was filed by his wife Pinki Devi on 15.01.2007 stating that he was
detained in Dhanbad Jail since 24.07.2006 and thereafter no further information was received. The Enquiry Officer
and management representative were appointed for holding domestic enquiry that was held on 09.02.2009, 02.03.2009
and 20.04.2009 but he remained absent. His wife Pinki Devi was also given opportunity to submit the explanation.
Thereafter the information was also collected from the Dhanbad Jail wherefrom vide letter dated 26.04.2010 it was
informed that the workman was under life imprisonment by the order of the Court and seeing the seriousness of the
situation he also deeply perused the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately he reached the
conclusion that his case was fit for dismissal from the services of the company and so he was dismissed from the
service of the company with immediate effect. Exhibit W-5 and Exhibit W-7 are the application given by the
workman Anil Kumar Paswan after being released on bail on 07.02.2014, one to the Project Officer, Lodna Colliery
and other to the General Manager, Lodna Area No. 10, BCCL. Exhibit W-6 is a type of Certificate issued by the
Superintendent Jaiprakash Narayan, Central Jail, Hazaribagh with detailed information of the session case and charges
against the workman informing that he has been sentenced by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, FTC II,
Dhanbad on 27.07.2006 and on 03.07.2011 he was transferred to Central Jail, Hazaribagh as convicted prisoner and on
07.02.2024 he was released on bail. Exhibit W-8 is the copy of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 24.07.2006 passed by the Additional Session Judge, F.T.C. II, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 167 of 2000 which shows
that the workman has convicted for the offence of murder inter-alia and sentenced to Rigorous Life Imprisonment etc.
Exhibit W-9 is the copy of different clauses of the Certified Standing Order of establishment under BCCL and on its
perusal it transpires that as per Clause 26.1.1, act of misconduct shall include habitual late attendance or wilful or
habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause and as per Clause 26.1.19, act of misconduct shall include
conviction by a Court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and Clause 27.2.6 says that no order
of discharge or dismissal from service shall be made by an authority lower than the appointing authority of the
workman.
18. On perusal of the charge sheet it transpires that the workman has been issued charge sheet under clause
26.1.1 of Certified Standing Order of BCCL for misconduct ie habitual late attendance or willful or habitual absence
from duty without sufficient cause but the management has failed to adduce any evidence to prove this charge of
habitual late attendance because the same charge sheet dated 31.12.2006 also contains the attendance of previous 3
years of the workman in which neither any period of absence nor previous punishment imposed if any, has been
recorded and as regards the willful absence from duty, admittedly the workman remained absent from duty since
24.07.2006 due to his conviction in Session Trial No. 167 of 2000 (Exhibit W-8) and consequent detention prior to
07.02.2014 when he was released on bail (Exhibit W-6) and so his absence is not willful rather due to compelling
reasons of his imprisonment by the order of the Court of law that was beyond his control and therefore the charge of
habitual late attendance or willful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause is held as not proved by the
management with the help of sufficient documentary evidence. Not only this, the management also failed to produce
the service record or attendance register or any other document showing pre-existing habitual absenteeism prior to the
jail sentence and therefore his absence does not amount to punishable misconduct for want of intention.
19. Now as regards the dismissal order dated 24.06/03.07.2010, on its perusal it is evident that the Project
Officer while passing the order of dismissal has even considered the conviction order of the Court together with the
enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer but without issuing any revised charge sheet under Clause 26.1.19 of
the Certified Standing Order which is also serious infirmity because without a specific charge sheet, no one can be
held guilty and the dismissal order cannot be based on the same.
20. Additionally, on perusal of the copy of appointment letter that is available on the case record though not
exhibited from the side of the workman it appears that the General Manager of Lodna Area is the Appointing
Authority of the workman whereas his dismissal order shows that he has been dismissed by the Project Officer, Lodna
Colliery who is lower in rank which has also been admitted by MW Abhijeet Kumar in paragraph 14 & 15 of his
cross-examination and this is flagrant violation of Clause 27.2.6 of the Certified Standing Order of the BCCL which
says that no order of discharge or dismissal from service shall be made by an authority lower than the appointing
authority of the workman. In this regard though the management has submitted that this can be done in case of
delegated power but it is relevant to mention that the management has failed to produce any document regarding
delegation of power in support of his submission and for this reason also the dismissal order suffers from serious
illegality and is liable to be set aside.
21. Thus on the basis of the above discussions of facts, circumstances and materials available on the case
record this Tribunal finds and holds that the dismissal order dated 24.06/03.07.2010 suffers from illegality and is
hereby set aside and the action of the management of Lodna Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri Anil Kumar
Paswan, Ex-SDL Mazdoor from the services of the company vide order dated 03.07.2010 is neither justified nor fair
and the workman is entitled to reinstatement. Accordingly the management is directed to reinstate the services of the
workman shri Anil Kumar Paswan within a period of 3 months from the date of the publication of the Award. The
9948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman shall be entitled to continuity of service but no back wages on the principle of “no work no wages”. The
reference is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India,
New Delhi for information and notification.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer
शुद्धिपत्र
नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1944.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj एडगर्रल सुपररटेंडेंट, िेवल डॉकयाडम ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ-1 ds iapkV
(19/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[la. ,y - 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-134]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1944.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.19/2023) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Mumbai -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admiral Superintendent ,
Naval Dockyard and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-134]
SALONI, Deputy Director
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
PRESENT
(JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA)
PRESIDING OFFICER
REFERENCE CGIT No. 19 of 2023
Admiral Superintendent,
Naval Dockyard, Mumbai
... First Party/Management
Versus
Indian Naval Employees Union
... Second Party/Workman
Mumbai, dated: 29.06.2026
CORRIGENDUM
"In the Award dated 25.02.2026 passed in Reference No. 19 of 2023, the date mentioned in Paragraph No. 6 at Page
No. 2 as '08.05.2019' and page No. 6 and Point No. as 08.05.2019 shall be read as '08.04.2019'. All other contents of
the Award shall remain unchanged."
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1945.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj इंगडयि ओवरसीज बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (a10/2021)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 39025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-104]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9949
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2026
S.O. 1945.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.10/2021) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-104]
SALONI, Deputy Director
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Date: 30-06-2026
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 10/2021
BETWEEN
Shri A.Kumar
S/o. Angapulli,
No.11, 2nd Main Road,
Viswa Illam, Aruthra Nagar,
Thandanchavadi
Puducherry.
:
1st Party / Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
:
II Party/Respondents
Appearance:
For the Petitioner
: M/s. T.Ramkumar, Advocates
For the Respondents
: M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co. Advocates
**********
This claim petition is filed by the Petitioner u/s.2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly seeking relief
of holding that action of the Respondent Bank in terminating the service of the Petitioner vide order dated
10.10.2018 is unjustified and further direct the Respondent/Management to pay full back wages, continuity of
service with all attendant benefits.
2.
As per the claim statement, the Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent Bank at Ulundhurpet
branch on 24.10.1984 as messenger/peon. Thereafter, in the year 2003, he was promoted as Clerk and posted at
Regional Office of the Respondent Bank at Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred
to Reddiarpalayam currency chest, where he worked till the date of his dismissal from service.
3.
The Respondent/Management issued an order of suspension dated 20.03.2018 alleging the Petitioner that he
committed an act of misappropriation and an enquiry was initiated. Although, the Petitioner has taken responsibility
for loss of money in currency chest and paid a sum of Rs.3,500/- on 14.03.2018, Rs.47,300/- on 19.03.2018 and
Rs.5000/- on 07.04.2018. According to the Petitioner, the management has assured him that he will be allowed to
retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. The Respondent Bank issued charge sheet dated
25.06.2018, wherein it is alleged that the Petitioner has fraudulently misappropriated soiled notes to the tune of
Rs.51,400/- and thereafter, remitted the same amount and thus, he acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the
bank. Since the Petitioner was at the verge of retirement and he has to depend on his terminal benefits and the
Respondent has also assured him that if he remits the amount allegedly lost from the currency chest by submitting
letter as per dictates to the management, he will be allowed to retire otherwise he will be thrown out of employment.
9950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
It is submitted that enquiry was conducted in English language, while the Petitioner had studied only upto
VIII standard through Tamil medium and the respondent also knew that Petitioner is not well versed in English
language. The Petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to furnish translated copy of charge sheet and other
documents. However, the Respondent/Management has preferred to proceed with in English language. It is also
stated that the Petitioner could not understand the proceedings in English language; he was unable to participate in
the enquiry proceedings therefore, he was unable to sign the papers already prepared by the
Respondent/Management. The Petitioner has signed the documents with no other option, but to sign the papers under
coercion.
5.
The Respondent/Management issued notice dated 21.08.2018 based on the enquiry report proposing extreme
punishment of dismissal. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.09.2018, wherein he has clearly stated that
he has not committed any misconduct and the letter was forcibly received from him by the Manager of the currency
chest. The Petitioner has further stated that he was not given any reasonable opportunity with reference to the
charges framed and the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the
Respondent/Management awarded the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 10.10.2018 and the
appeal was summarily rejected by the authority without appreciating the grounds raised by the Petitioner. Thus, the
order of dismissal imposed by the Respondent Bank is unjust, unfair and in violation of principles of natural justice.
At the time of issuance of order of suspension, the enquiry was neither pending nor initiated and his service was
dismissed based on the charge sheet which contains vague charges and false allegations. The enquiry was not
conducted in the language known to the Petitioner and the charges levelled against the Petitioner were not proved in
the enquiry proceedings. The Petitioner never engaged in the act of misappropriation and therefore, the order of
dismissal is liable to be interfered by this Tribunal u/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6.
The Respondent/Management in its reply statement stated that the Petitioner has worked as clerk/shroff at
the Reddiarpalayam branch of the Respondent Bank between 28.02.2015 and 20.03.2018. On 14.03.2018, there was
a cash shortage of Rs.3,500/- in rupees hundred soiled notes section at Currency Chest section. Pursuant to the
search carried out by the staff members of the chest, soiled currency notes (Rs.100/- x 35) were found lying in the
steel almirah of the counting hall. On verification of CCTV footage on 14.03.2018, it was found that when the other
staff members of currency chest were moving other side of counting hall in search of missing currency, the Petitioner
had gone with them and utilized the circumstances, he took the currency out of his pant pocket and kept the currency
on the floor and pushed them under steel almirah. The Petitioner had in voluntary admission of guilt tendered
confession letter dated 15.03.2018 admitting the embezzlement of soiled currency of Rs.55,000/- over a period of
one month’s time. On verification of currency chest, it was found that there was cash shortage of Rs.51,400/- in the
hundred rupees soiled notes section. The Petitioner remitted the amount of Rs.47,300/- on 19.03.2018 and another
Rs.5000/- on 07.04.2018 to the credit of branch sundry creditors account. The Petitioner was placed under
suspension by an order dated 20.03.2018 pending investigation of the case in terms of clause 3(a) read with Clause
12(b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 entered into between the Indian Bank Association and the
workmen Union.
7. The Disciplinary Authority vide its letter No.RO/VIG//2018-2019 dated 18.04.2018 noticed the petitioner
about his misappropriation of cash from the currency chest as is discernible from the CCTV Footage and sought his
explanation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of said letter failing which the matter would be
proceeded with as deemed fit and proper. The petitioner had in his reply dated 04.05.2018 sought apology for the
mistakes since committed by him which amounted to admission of his misappropriation of the cash as alluded in the
letter dated 18.04.2018 admitted to have been served on him on 04.05.2018. The disciplinary proceedings for gross
misconduct under vigilance angle thus came to be initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet was issued on
25.06.2018 for his acts of omission and commission amounting to gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause
5(d) and 5(j) and "Minor misconduct within the meaning of clause 7(d) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-04-
2002 entered into between the Bank and its workmen. The petitioner vide his reply dated 26.06.2018 had again
confessed of having taken the money, repaying the entire amount and admitted all the allegations and articles of
Charge laid in the charge sheet dated 25.06.2018. The petitioner had in his said reply requested the Enquiry Officer to
conduct the enquiry on 27.06.2018 as also to dispose the case at the earliest. The petitioner had also submitted that he
does not propose to have a defence representative. The Disciplinary Authority had ordered the enquiry whereupon it
was conducted on 27.06.2018. The petitioner had attended the enquiry proceedings on 27.06.2018 and had admitted
his guilt voluntarily and unconditionally. The petitioner had requested that he is due for retirement on 30.06.2018 and
had submitted that the lapses committed was due to pressure of work and family issues. The Enquiry Officer
submitted his findings on 27.06.2018 itself whereunder all the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The
Petitioner participated in the proceedings without any protest. As the Disciplinary Authority Mr.Anbarasan retired
from service in the pending disciplinary proceedings, a new Disciplinary Authority came to be appointed who had
vide his letter dated 21.08.2018 proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal from service and had advised the
petitioner to attend the personal hearing on 07.09.2018. Pursuant to conduct of personal hearing, on 07.09.2018, the
Disciplinary Authority had observed that charges are proved against the Petitioner being grave warranting deterrent
punishment and vide order dated 10.10.2018 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service in terms of clause
6(a) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 and the appeal was dismissed after hearing on 10.12.2019.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9951
The enquiry was conducted in fair manner following the principles of natural justice. The delinquent employees had
voluntarily admitted and confessed his act of misappropriation of bank money. Therefore, the order of dismissal is
valid under the law and the Industrial Dispute raised by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
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 counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.
9.
The Petitioner has confined his argument to the extent that punishment imposed by the
Respondent/Management is disproportionate to the charges leveled against him and therefore, this Tribunal must
invoke its powers provided under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner challenged the
validity of domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent/Management and this Tribunal vide its order dated
08.09.2025 decided the issue of fairness of enquiry against the Petitioner. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that
this Court by invoking its power u/s.11A of the Act may interfere with the punishment of dismissal from service. It
is argued that section 11A of the Act this Tribunal is empowered to –
a)
Re-appreciate the evidence relied on in the domestic enquiry
b)
Determine whether findings are supported by evidence;
c)
Examine whether the punishment is justified and proportionate;
d)
May substitute a lesser punishment, if the punishment imposed is excessive.
10.
It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that Petitioner has educated only in Tamil medium and enquiry was
conducted in English language. The charges alleged against the Petitioner were false and baseless. The Petitioner
was assured if the alleged cash shortage
was remitted and letter was signed, he would be permitted to retire
peacefully and thus, the Petitioner has remitted the amount only under compulsion and under expectation that his
terminal benefits would not be denied. It is also argued that no criminal case was registered against the Petitioner
and the Petitioner has completed 34 years of unblemished service with the Respondent Bank and the Respondent
Bank failed to consider the past records of the Petitioner. The punishment of dismissal from service is highly unfair,
unreasonable and disproportionate to the alleged charges made against the Petitioner.
11.
In contra, it is argued on behalf of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner has misappropriated
the currency notes of the bank; he admitted his guilt in writing and failed to provide any evidence in his defense.
The CCTV footage confirmed the guilt wherein it is seen that the Petitioner has taken out the currency from his pant
pocket and kept on the floor and pushed them under the Almirah. It is also argued that misappropriation of money is a
serious offence and the Respondent Bank lost its faith reposed on the Petitioner. Therefore, the order of dismissal is
appropriate and there is no occasion to interfere with the punishment awarded by the Respondent/Management by
invoking the provisions of section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12. It appears that the Petitioner was placed under suspension pending investigation of the case in terms of clause
3(a) read with Clause 12(b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 entered into between the Indian Bank
Association and the workmen Union. The reason of suspension was mentioned in the suspension order and the
investigation was initiated in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement carried out by the Respondent/Management
and the workmen Union. Therefore, there is no illegality in issuance of suspension order against the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has submitted his confession letter dated 15.03.2018 written in Tamil language. The Petitioner has
admitted in this letter that he misappropriated the total amount of Rs.55,000/- on various occasions. The Petitioner
himself submitted in reply to the charge sheet issued to the Petitioner that he deposited Rs.3,500/- on 14.03.2018,
Rs.47,300/- on 19.03.2018 and Rs.5000/- on 07.04.2018. It is now argued that this letter was written under coercion.
But, this fact of coercion is not available on record. The amount is deposited by the Petitioner himself and he
admitted this fact in his letter dated 04.05.2018 available at page 5 of the paper book of the respondent.
13. The Petitioner was charged with three Articles of Charge-
Having regard to the above Statement of Allegation, it is charged that
i) You had dishonestly and fraudulently removed currencies from Rs.100/- soiled note sections from Currency
Chest as detailed in the above allegation and misappropriated p the Cash for your personal pecuniary benefit.
Thereby you had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank,
9952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ii) you had breached the trust reposed by the Bank in as much as a Clerk/Shroff of Currency Chest, you had
committed the above act of misappropriation.
iii) You had acted in manner unbecoming of an employee of a financial institution and you had violated the
instructions contained in Para 9.1 under Section B Chapter A 1 Volume 4 of Bank's Book of Instructions in as
much as while segregating currencies and preparing sections into soiled/cut and re-issuable notes, you had
misappropriated the amount as detailed in the above allegation to obtain undue personal pecuniary gains to
yourself.
14.
After receiving copy of charge sheet dated 25.06.2018, the Petitioner has written a letter to the Enquiry
Officer on 26.06.2018 (page 9 of the paper book). The relevant part of the letter runs as under:-
“I admit all the allegations and articles of charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 25.06.2018. I request the EO
to conduct enquiry on 27.06.2018 and complete the proceedings and I have gone through the list of documents and I
have nothing more to offer.
I do not propose to have a defense representative;
I request the EO to conduct enquiry as requested and dispose of at the earliest.
This letter was written in English language and was signed by the Petitioner in English language.
15.
During the enquiry proceedings, the delinquent employee admitted that he has received charge sheet dated
25.06.2018 and he admitted that he understood the charges framed against him. Although, the Enquiry Officer read
out charges again in front of the delinquent employee and he accepted all the charges levelled in the charge sheet
dated 25.06.2018 unconditionally . The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry in spite the delinquent employee
accepting all the charges voluntarily and unconditionally. The Presenting Officer submitted list of documents and
witnesses proposed to rely upon by the Management. He submitted two CDs containing of CCTV footage of
currency chest, investigation report made by R.Velan, Vigilance Office, R.O., Puducherry. The confession letter
written by the Petitioner dated 15.03.2008 and the branch credit cash voucher dated 18.03.2018, 07.04.2018 for
Rs.47,300/- and Rs.5000/- respectively. These documents were marked as Ex.ME1 to ME8. The Enquiry Officer
provided an opportunity to the Petitioner and asked him have you gone through management documents provided
along with Enquiry Officer letter dated 26.06.2018. The Petitioner answered in positive and accepted all the charges
voluntarily and unconditionally. The Enquiry Officer again provided an opportunity to go through the documents
provided by the management . During the enquiry, the Petitioner again admitted the charges voluntarily and
unconditionally knowing consequences arising out of admission of guilt. The Petitioner denied to produce any
witness or document in his defense and requested to waive of his defense.
16.
As per discussion above, the concerned employee admitted the guilt at the earlier stage in reply to charge
sheet and at the time of enquiry proceedings, the employer was holding disciplinary proceedings in spite of absolute
admission of guilt and the employee was provided again to defend himself. But, the Petitioner failed to submit
any oral or documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer although criminal prosecution was not initiated by
the Respondent/Management, but that omission cannot wash out admission of guilt of delinquent employee and the
evidence of CCTV footage and enquiry report submitted by the Investigation Officer in the departmental
proceedings. The admission of guilt by the Petitioner appears voluntarily and the grounds raised by the Petitioner
appears to be an afterthought and based on legal advise that this admission was made under duress or coercion
or threat.
17.
Now I have to consider whether punishment imposed on the Petitioner is shockingly disproportionate?
18.
Admittedly, the Respondent Bank had lost its faith reposed on the Petitioner and the act of
misappropriation committed by the Petitioner is grievous misconduct
19.
In a case law in Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and others, (1996) 2 LLN
881,wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that act of misappropriation is relevant and the amount
of misappropriation may be small or large. In a case of such nature, indeed, in cases involving corruption there
cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and
opposed to public interest.
20.
In view of the above discussion, in my view, the impugned order passed by the Respondent/Management is
valid and I am not inclined to interfere with the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the
Respondent/Management on the Petitioner u/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9953
AWARD
The claim petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
Record be consigned to the record room.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1946.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a22/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/250/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1946.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.22/2002) 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-12012/250/2001- 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. 22/2002
Between:
Sri J. Ananda Rao,
S/o Wilson,
D.No.15/409,
Edepalli, Ganganamma Temple,
Machilipatnam,
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… 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
9954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-12012/250/2001-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 J. Ananda Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 22/2002 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, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1947.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a6/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/235/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9955
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1947.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.6/2002) 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-12012/235/2000- 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. 6/2002
Between:
Sri P. Ravi,
S/o p. Lakshamaiah,
R/o D.No.36-5-27,
Woodpet Labbipet (PO),
Krishna Dist. -521366.
… 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-12012/235/2001-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 P. Ravi, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 6/2002 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,
9956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[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, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1948.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a232/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/393/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I))]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1948.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.232/2002) 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-12012/393/2001- 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. 232/2002
Between:
Sri T.V.V. Satyanarayana,
S/o Lakshmi Narayana,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9957
Budhavaram Road, Near Saw Mill,
Gannavaram,
Krishna Dist .- 521101.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
Labbipet,
Vijayawada -520 003.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri
Macherla Rangaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Matter placed today before Tribunal for order. perused the record. This industrial dispute was received
from Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/393/2001-IR(B.I) dated 4.4.2002, 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 T.V.V. Satyanarayana, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 232/2002 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
9958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1949.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a249/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/7/2002- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1949.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.249/2002) 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-12012/7/2002- 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. 249/2002
Between:
Sri M. Ankalaiah,
S/o M. Yerraiah,
Bhimavaram (V & PO), Chandragiri(M),
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-12012/7/2002-IR(B.I) dated 30.04.2002, 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, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing the services
of Sri M. Ankalaiah, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9959
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 249/2002 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, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1950.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a25/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y- 12012/257/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1950.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.25/2002) 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-12012/257/2000- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Deputy Director
9960
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 6th day of February, 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 25/2002
Between:
Sri B. Subba Rao,
S/o Yesupadam,
Gandhigunta post, Vuyyuru,
Krishna Dist.-521366.
… 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-12012/257/2001-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, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing the
services of Sri B. Subba Rao, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 25/2002 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त, 29, 2026/ भार 7, 1948
9961
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, 25 अगस् त, 2026
का.आ. 1951.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(a218/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la. ,y - 12012/94/2001- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप गनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2026
S.O. 1951.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.218/2001) 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-12012/94/2001- 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. 218/2001
Between:
Smt K. Adilaxmi,
W/o Laxmaiah,
R/o D.No. 53-4-95,
Vijayawada-8.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region II,
Labbipet,
Vijayawada -520 001.
…..Respondent
9962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2026/ BHADRA 7, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-12012/94/2001-IR(B.I) dated 18.09.2001, 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, VijaywadaZone in dismissing the services
of Smt. K. Adilaxmi, Ex-Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 218/2001 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
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
VINOD
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
Date: 2026.09.23
14:35:13 +05'30'