This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजजस्ट्री स.ं डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 सी.जी.-डी.एxलx.x-GसIDा.-H0x7xx0 72025-264434 CG-DLxx-WxG-I0D7E0x7xx2 025-264434 प्राजधकार स ेप्रकाजित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्त ाजहक WEEKLY स.ं 22] नई ददल्ल ी, जनू 8—जनू 14, 2025, िजनवार/ज्य ष्े ठ 18—ज्य ष्े ठ 24, 1947 No. 22] NEW DELHI, JUNE 8—JUNE 14, 2025, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 18– JYAISTHA 24, 1947 इस भाग म ेंजभन्न ृष्ृ ठ स्‍ं य ा दी जाती ह जजजसस ेदक यह ृथृ क संकलन के प ृ म ेंरखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation भाग II—खण्ड 3—उृ-खण्ड (ii) PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii) भारत सरकार के मत्रं ालयों (रक्षा मत्रं ालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए साजं वजधक आदिे और अजधसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence) जवत्त मत्रं ालय (जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) नई ददल्ली, 6 जून, 2025 का.आ. 957.—राष्ट्रीय अवसंरचना जवत्तृोषण और जवकास बैंक अजधजनयम, 2021 (2021 का 17) की धारा 6 की उृ-धारा (1) के खडं (घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री राजीव ससह ठाकुर के स्ट्थान ृर सुश्री गुरनीत तेज, संयुि सजचव, उद्योग संवधधन और आतं ररक व्याृार जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगल े आदेिों तक, राष्ट्रीय अवसंरचना जवत्तृोषण और जवकास बैंक के जनदेिक मण्डल मे जनदेिक के ृद ृर नाजमत करती ह।ज [फा. सं. 15/10/2021-आईएफ-I] प्रांचल गुप्ता, सहायक जनदेिक 3596 GI/2025 (3897)3898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi, the 6th June, 2025 S.O. 957.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development Act, 2021 (17 of 2021), the Central Government hereby nominates Ms. Gurneet Tej, Joint Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, as Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development, with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Rajeev Singh Thakur. [F. No. 15/10/2021-IF-I] PRANCHAL GUPTA, Assistant Director जवदेि मत्रं ालय (सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग) नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.आ. 958.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजधाजनक आदेि । एतदद्व् ारा, सरकार भारतीय उच्चायोग, गजबोरोन म ेंश्री योग राज, सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी,को जनू 09, 2025 से सहायक कांसुलर अजधकारी के प ृ म ें कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवधहन करन े के जलए अजधकृत करती ह।ज [फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(27)] एस.आर.एच. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (CPV Division) New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 958.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the 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 Shri Yog Raj, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Gaborone, to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from June 09, 2025. [F. No. T. 4330/01/2025(27)] S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV) नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.आ. 959.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजधाजनक आदेि । एतदद्व् ारा,सरकार भारत के दतू ावास रबात मेेँ श्री मनदीृ चहल, सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी,को जनू 09, 2025 स े सहायक कांसुलर अजधकारी के प ृ म ें कांसुलर सवे ाओं का जनवधहन करन े के जलए अजधकृत करती ह।ज [फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(28)] एस.आर.एच. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3899 New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 959.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the 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 Sh. Mandeep Chahal, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Rabat to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from June 09, 2025. [F. No. T. 4330/01/2025(28)] S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV) ृरे ोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गसज मत्रं ालय नई ददल्ली, 2 मई, 2025 का.आ. 960.—केन् रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उृजनयम (4) के अनुसरण म ें ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन सावधजजनक क्षेत्र के उृक्रम के जनम्न जलजखत कायाधलयों, जजसके 80 या अजधक प्रजतित कमधचारी वृन् द ने जहन्द ी का कायधसाधक ञानान प्राप् त कर जलया ह,ज को एतदद्वारा अजधसूजचत करती ह:ज- 1. जहन्दस्ट्ु तान ृरे ोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, उत्तरी सीमान्त अचं ल, बीएसएनएल सीटीओ भवन, चरण-4, सक्े टर-59, साजहबजादा अजीत ससह नगर, मोहाली 2. जहन्दस्ट्ु तान ृरे ोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, उत्तर ृजिम सीमान्त अचं ल, 18 मॉडल टाउन, मालवीय नगर, जयृरु [फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.(2025)] डॉ. ज्योजत जमश्रा, उृ जनदिे क (राजभाषा) MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025 S.O. 960.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:- 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Northern Frontier Zone, BSNL CTO Building, Phase-4, Sector-59, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, North West Frontier Zone, 18 Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur [F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL (2025)] Dr. JYOTI MISHRA, Dy. Director (OL)3900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई ददल्ली, 15 मई, 2025 का.आ. 961.—Hkkjr ljdkj u s iVs ªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkfwe es a mi;kxs ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu½ vfèkfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mä vfèkfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkkjk 3 dh mièkkjk ¼1½ ds vèkhu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds iVs ªksfy;e vkSj çk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vfèklwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 5384¼v½ rkjh[k 18.10.2022 tks Hkkjr ds vlk/kkj.k jkti= rkjh[k 18.11.2022] es a izdkf’kr dh x;h Fkh] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph es a fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVMs }kjk egkjk"V jkT; esa mj.k&mlj izksius ikbiykbu ls ek/;e ls rjyhd`r izksisu ds ifjogu ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kts u ds fy, mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu dju s ds viu s vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh( vkSj mä jkti= vfèklwpuk dh çfr;k a turk dk s miyCèk djk nh xbZ Fkh( vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us turk ds izkIr vk{ksika s dk s ijh{k.k ds mijkar fuiVku dj fn;k gS( vkSj] l{ke çkfèkdkjh us] mä vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 6 dh mièkkjk ¼1½ ds vèkhu Hkkjr ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ n s nh gS( vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj dju s ds i'pkr vkSj ;g larq"V gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, vifs{kr gS] ml es a mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu dju s dk fofu'p; fd;k gS( vr% vc] Hkkjr ljdkj] mä vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 6 dh mi&èkkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙr 'kfä;kas dk ç;ksx djr s gq;s] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vfèklwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph es a fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu fd;k tkrk gS( vkSj] Hkkjr ljdkj] mä vfèkfu;e fd èkkjk 6 fd mièkkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq;s] funZs'k nsrh gS fd ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, Hkwfe es a mi;kxs dk vfèkdkj] bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku dh rkjh[k सेs] Hkkjr ljdkj eas fufgr gksus ds ctk, lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gkds j] xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVMs es a fufgr gksxkA उरण – उसर प्रोृने ृाईृ लाईन अनसु चू ी राज्य : महाराष्ट्र जजला तहसील गावेँ स.न.ं क्षत्रे हक्े टेयर आर वग धमीटर 1 2 3 4 5 रायगड उरण धसाखोिी 35 00 27 14 रायगड ृनवेल साई 231 00 16 94 [फा. सं. एल- 14014/89/2021-जी ृी- II (ई-39351)] रामजीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 15th May, 2025 S.O. 961.—Whereas by the Notification of Government of India, in Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide S.O. No. 5384(E) Dated 18.10.2022; issued under sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 18.11.2022, the Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of Liquid Propane through Uran-Usar Propane pipeline in the State of Maharashtra by GAIL (India) Limited;[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3901 And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public; And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered of by the Competent Authority; And, whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of Section (6) of the said Act, submitted its report to Government of India; And whereas Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipelines, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section (6) of the said Act, Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances. URAN – USAR PROPANE PIPE LINE SCHEDULE State: Maharashtra District Tehsil Village Survey Area No. Hect. Are. Sq. Mtr. 1 2 3 4 5 RAIGAD URAN DHASAKHOSHI 35 00 27 14 RAIGAD PANVEL SAI 231 00 16 94 [F. No. L-14014/ 89/2021-GP-II (E-39351)] RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy. नई ददल्ली, 23 मई, 2025 का.आ. 962.—राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उृजनयम (4) के अनुसरण म ें ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन सावधजजनक क्षेत्र के उृक्रम के जनम्न जलजखत कायाधलयों, जजसके 80 या अजधक प्रजतित कमधचारी वृन् द ने जहन्द ी का कायधसाधक ञानान प्राप् त कर जलया ह,ज को केन् र सरकार एतदद्वारा अजधसूजचत करती ह:ज - 1. आईओसीएल (ृाइृलाइन प्रभाग) ृज‍ चमी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन् स, जयृुर 2. आईओसीएल (ृाइृलाइन प्रभाग) ृज‍ चमी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन् स, जचत् तौड़ग 3. आईओसीएल (ृाइृलाइन प्रभाग) ृज‍ चमी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन् स, राधनृुर 4. आईओसीएल (ृाइृलाइन प्रभाग) ृज‍ चमी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन् स, अहमदाबाद डी.एस. 5. आईओसीएल (ृाइृलाइन प्रभाग) ृज‍ चमी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन् स, रतलाम 6. आईओसीएल (ृाइृलाइन प्रभाग) ृज‍ चमी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन् स, दमु ाड़ 7. आईओसीएल (ृाइृलाइन प्रभाग) ृज‍ चमी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन् स, हजीरा [फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.(2025)] डॉ. ज्योजत जमश्रा, उृ जनदिे क (राजभाषा)3902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2025 S.O. 962.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:- 1. IOCL (Pipelines Division), Western Region Pipelines, Jaipur 2. IOCL (Pipelines Division), Western Region Pipelines, Chitaurgarh 3. IOCL (Pipelines Division), Western Region Pipelines, Radhanpur 4. IOCL (Pipelines Division), Western Region Pipelines, Ahmadabad D.S.. 5. IOCL (Pipelines Division), Western Region Pipelines, Ratlam 6. IOCL (Pipelines Division), Western Region Pipelines, Dumad 7. IOCL (Pipelines Division), Western Region Pipelines, Hazira [F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL (2025)] Dr. JYOTI MISHRA, Dy. Director (OL) नई ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 963.—tcfd Hkkjr ljdkj dks ykds fgr esa ;g vko’;d izfrr gkrs k gS fd e/; izns'k jkT; es a fot;iqj&fot;iqj VfeZuy ¼xsy fot;iqj daizslj LVs'ku ls xsy ,u,Q,y VfeZuy½ izkd`frd xSl ikbiykbu ds ek/;e ls izkd`frd xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVMs }kjk ,d ikbi ykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,% vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj dks mDr ikbi ykbu fcNkus ds iz;kts u ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ml Hkwfe es]a ftles mDr ikbi ykbu fcNkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk es layXu vuqlwph es of.kZr gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,% vr% vc Hkkjr ljdkj] iVs ªkfsy;e vkSj [kfut ikbi ykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ fd /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS% dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph es of.kZr Hkwfe es a fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ds jkti= es ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl vf/kfu;e dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k dj nh tkrh gS] 21 fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds laca/k esa] l{ke izkf/kdkjh] xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM] e/; izns'k jkT; ¼irk% vij dysDVj] ftyk&xquk] e/; izns'k½] dks fyf[kr :Ik eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA 225/1 0.732 243/2 0.052 241/1 0.048 240/2 0.044 239 0.037 238/2/2 0.044 238/2/1 0.055 1.012 [फा. सं. एल- 14014/112/2017-जीृी- II (ई-45566)] रामजीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3903 New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 963.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas through Vijaipur – Vijaipur Terminal (GAIL Vijaipur Compressor Station to GAIL NFL Terminal) Gas Pipeline in the State of Madhya Pradesh, a Pipeline should be laid by GAIL (India) Limited; And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification; Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein; Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority GAIL (India) Limited, State of Madhya Pradesh (Address: Additional Collector, District - Guna, Madhya Pradesh). GAIL Vijaipur Compressor Station to GAIL NFL Terminal Land schedule State – Madhya Pradesh Area District Tehsil Village Survey No. Hect. Guna Raghoghar Dongar 225/1 0.732 243/2 0.052 241/1 0.048 240/2 0.044 239 0.037 238/2/2 0.044 238/2/1 0.055 Total 1.012 [F. No. L-14014/112/2017-GP-II (E-45566)] RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy. नई ददल्ली, 3 जून, 2025 का.आ. 964.—तेल उद्योग (जवकास) अजधजनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) की धारा 3 की उृ-धारा (3) (बी) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों के तहत, केंर सरकार एतद्द्वारा जनम्नजलजखत अजधकाररयों को 20.05.2025 से 19.05.2027 तक या अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहल े हो, तेल उद्योग जवकास बोडध के सदस्ट्यों के प ृ में जनयिु करती ह।ज i. सुश्री काजमनी चौहान रतन, अृर सजचव एवं जवत्तीय सलाहकार, ृेरोजलयम एवं प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय ii. श्री डी. आनंदन, अृर सजचव, लोक जवत्त केंरीय-I, व्यय जवभाग, जवत्त मंत्रालय iii. श्री अरुण कुमार ससह, अध्यक्ष, तेल एवं प्राकृजतक गजस जनगम iv. श्री अरसवदर ससह साहनी, अध्यक्ष, इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड। v. श्री संदीृ कुमार गुप्ता, अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध जनदिे क, गेल (इंजडया) vi. श्री संजय खन्ना, अध्यक्ष एव ंप्रबधं जनदेिक, भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड [फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-एफआईएन.I (ई 33886)] जवकास चंर चौधरी, अवर सजचव3904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2025 S.O. 964.—in exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(b) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following officials as Members of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 20.05.2025 to 19.05.2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier: i. Ms. Kamini Chauhan Ratan, Additional Secretary & Financial Advisor, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas ii. Shri D. Anandan, Additional Secretary (PFC - I), Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance iii. Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation iv. Shri Arvinder Singh Sahney, Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. v. Shri Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Chairman and Managing Director, GAIL (India) vi. Shri Sanjay Khanna, Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited [F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.I (E-33886)] V. C. CHAUDHARY, Under Secy. श्रम और रोजगार मत्रं ालय नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 965.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ( 1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a -सह - ] नागृरु ds iapkV ( 17/2019-20) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/62/2019-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2019-20) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/05/2025. [No. L-22012/62/2019– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/17/2019-20 Date: 29.04.2025. Party No.1: The Colliery Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Saoner Mine No. 2, PO/Tq. Saoner Distt. Nagpur – 441107. V/s. Party No.2: Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, Secretary, Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU), C/o Sh. Maqubool Akhtar Mining Sardar, Saoner Mine No. 2, WCL Bajaj Colony Qtr. No 2/3, Saoner Project, Saoner Distt- Nagpur – 441107.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3905 AWARD (Dated: 29th April, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Llimited, and their workman Shri. Maqubool Akhtar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/62/2019 (IR(CM-II)) dated 10.07.2019, with the following schedule:- ―Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd. through its Colliery Manager Saoner Mine No. 2 Saoner Distt. Nagpur (MS) in not correcting date of birth from 04/03/1960 to 06/11/1963 of disputant workman namely Sh. Maqubool Akhtar, Mining Sardar Mine 2 of WCL on the basis of school certificates issued by the competent education board’s authority wherein his date of birth is clearly mentioned as 06/11/1963 and as per circular dated 25/04/1988 (Implementation Instruction No. 76) of the CIL, Calcutta is legal, proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?‖ 2. Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 17/01/2022. Although, statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. No evidence has been filed by the petitioner to establish his case till today. Petitioner is not coming to the Court for a long time back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved.So, it is closed. Hence,it is ordered. ORDER The action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd. through its Colliery Manager Saoner Mine No. 2 Saoner Distt. Nagpur (MS) in not correcting date of birth from 04/03/1960 to 06/11/1963 of disputant workman namely Sh. Maqubool Akhtar, Mining Sardar Mine 2 of WCL on the basis of school certificates issued by the competent education board’s authority wherein his date of birth is clearly mentioned as 06/11/1963 and as per circular dated 25/04/1988 (Implementation Instruction No. 76) of the CIL, Calcutta is legal, proper and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 966.—vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a - सह- नागृरु ds iapkV ( / - ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/133/2016-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2017-18) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/05/2025. [No. L-22012/133/2016– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/05/2017-18 Date: 29.04.2025. Party No.1: The Sub Area Manager, Pimpalgaon O/c Mines of WCL,3906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Wani North Area, Post: Ukni, Tehsil: Wani, Distt. Yavatmal, Yavatmal (M.S.) – 445304. V/s. Party No.2: The President/Secretary, Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), At – Pimpalgaon O/c Mine, Post: Ukni, Tehsil: Wani, Distt. Yavatmal, Yavatmal (M.S.) – 445304. AWARD (Dated: 29th April, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Pimpalgaon O/C Mines, Wani North Area., and their workman Shri. Narayan Rajayya Udantiwar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/133/2016 (IR(CM-II)) dated 09.05.2017, with the following schedule:- ―Whether the action of the management of WCL, Pimpalgaon, Open Cst Mine, Post-Ukni, Tah-Wani, Distt-Yavatmal over the issue of discrimination in promotion to Shri Narayan Rajayya Udantiwar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?‖ 2. Case is called out. Shri. R.R. Pimpalkhute has filed his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of respondent/ management, which is taken on record. Petitioner is absent. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 27/02/2020 i.e. near about more than five years. Although, statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to establish his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court for a long time back. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER The action of the management of WCL, Pimpalgaon, Open Cst Mine, Post-Ukni, Tah-Wani, Distt-Yavatmal over the issue of discrimination in promotion to Shri Narayan Rajayya Udantiwar is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 967.—vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es]a dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a - सह- नागृरु ds iapkV ( / - ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/61/2019-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2019-20) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/05/2025. [No. L-22012/61/2019– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3907 ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/18/2019-20 Date: 29.04.2025. Party No.1: The Mine Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Saoner Mine No. 2, Tah. Saoner, Distt Nagpur – 441107. V/s. Party No.2: 1. Shri. Shivmurat Banarasi, WCL Saoner Project Hawamahal, Qtr. No. 67, Saoner, Distt. Nagpur – 441107. 2. The General Secretary, Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU), Branch: Saoner, Nagpur Area, Tah. Saoner, Nagpur – 441107. AWARD (Dated: 29th April, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workman Shri. Shivmurat Banarasi, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/61/2019 (IR(CM-II)) dated 10.07.2019, with the following schedule:- ― Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Saoner Mine No. 2 Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur is dismissing the service of the workman Shri Shivmurat Banarasi is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since 16/11/2021. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to establish his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court for a long time back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER The action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Saoner Mine No. 2 Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur is dismissing the service of the workman Shri Shivmurat Banarasi is just fair & legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 968.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V3908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vkS|kfsxd fookn es a - सह- नागृरु ds iapkV ( / - ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/139/2012-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2012-13) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/05/2025. [No. L-22012/139/2012– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/18/2012-13 Date: 29.04.2025. Party No.1: 1. The Chief General Manager, Wani Area, Western Coalfields Ltd., Post – Urjagram Tadali, Chandrapur (M.S). 2. The Sub Area Manager, Neeljai O/c Mines, Wani Area, Western Coalfields Ltd. Post – Neeljai, Tah – Wani, Yavatmal (M.S). V/s. Party No.2: The Joint General Secretary, All India SC/ST/Backward Class Employees Co-ordination Council, Qtr. No. B-46, Neeljay Township, Sunder Nagar, Post-Punwat, Tah-Wani, Yavatmal (M.S.) AWARD (Dated: 29th April, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Wani Area, Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workman Shri. V.V. Sontakke, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/139/2012 (IR(CM-II)) dated 05.11.2012, with the following schedule:- ―With reference to CIL’s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, Whether the Management’s denial to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri. V.V. Sontakke, ITI Certificate Holder at par with his juniors who are drawing more wages in Wani Area of WCL is legal & justified ? If not, what monetary benefit the workman is entitled to?‖[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3909 2. Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since 07/03/2019. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence. But petitioner has not turned up to the Court to establish the contents of the affidavit as well as the contents of the statement of claim. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to establish his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court for long time back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER The Management’s denial to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri. V.V. Sontakke, ITI Certificate Holder at par with his juniors who are drawing more wages in Wani Area of WCL is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any monetary benefit. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 969.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a - सह- नागृरु ds iapkV ( / - ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/22/2016-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2016-17) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/04/2025. [No. L-22012/22/2016– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/13/2016-17 Date: 26.03.2025. Party No.1: The Sub Area Manager, Mungoli O/C Mines, Western Coalfields Ltd., Post Sakhra, Tah. Wani, Distt. Yawatmal (M.S.) – 445037. V/s. Party No.2: Shri S. W. Waghmare, Area Secretary, All India SC/ST/BC Employees Co-ordination Council, Wani Area, Qr. No. B-15 Ramnagar Colony, PO : Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur. Chandrapur (M.S.) 442505.3910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD (Dated: 26th March, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Mungoli O/C Mines, Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workman through Area Secretary All India SC/ST/OBC Class Employees Coordination Council for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/22/2016 (IR(CM-II)) dated 06.06.2016, with the following schedule:- ― Whether the demand by Area Secretary of All India SC/ST/BC Employee Co-ordination Council Wani Area, Tah: Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur over the issue of anomaly in pay fixation or pay disparity in respect of Shri C.M. Jiwane, Senior Mechanic, Mungoli O/C Mines, Tah: Wani, Distt. Yavatmal is just, fair & lega l ? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 30/01/2020. Although the statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove the contents of the statement of the claim. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER The demand by Area Secretary of All India SC/ST/BC Employee Co-ordination Council Wani Area, Tah: Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur over the issue of anomaly in pay fixation or pay disparity in respect of Shri C.M. Jiwane, Senior Mechanic, Mungoli O/C Mines, Tah: Wani, Distt. Yavatmal is unjust, unfair & illegal. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 970.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a - सह- नागृरु ds iapkV ( / - ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/100/2014-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2014-15) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/04/2025. [No. L-22012/100/2014– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/73/2014-15 Date: 26.03.2025. Party No.1: 1) The Sub Area Manager, WCL, Neeljay Sub Area, Post-Belora, Tah-Wani. Dist. Yawatmal-445105 .[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3911 2) The Chief General Manager, W.C.L. Wani Area, Post Jagram Tadali, Chandrapur (M.S) 445304. V/s. Party No.2: The Secretary, All India SC/ST/OBC Class Employees Coordination Council, Ramnagar Colony, Ghugus, Chandrapur (MS)-442505. AWARD (Dated: 26th March, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL, Neeljay South Sub Area and their Union, All India SC/ST/OBC Class Employees Coordination Council for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/100/2014 (IR(CM II)) dated 19.02.2015, with the following schedule: - ―Whether the demand of union raised vide their representation No. WCL/SC/ST/BC. Emp/Vase/109(1) dated 01/03/2013 (Annexure enclosed) is just, fair or legal ? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. A.D. Gabhane holding brief of Shri P.V. Ghare is accidently present today only before the Court. Otherwise, both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 30/01/2020. Although earlier, petitioner as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively. But later on, one application dated 19/12/2018 has been filed by the petitioner to collect some documents and for filing fresh statement of claim. But since filing this application, no one is coming to the Court to press on this application from the side of petitioner. Hence, this application is rejected being not pressed. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove the contents of the statement of claim to establish his claim. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The demand of union raised vide their representation No. WCL/SC/ST/BC. Emp/Vase/109(1) dated 01/03/2013 (Annexure enclosed) is unjust, unfair or illegal. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 971.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a - सह- नागृरु ds iapkV ( / - ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/25/2016-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक3912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2016-17) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/04/2025. [No. L-22012/25/2016– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/11/2016-17 Date: 26.03.2025. Party No.1: The Sub Area Manager, Mungoli O/C Mines, Western Coalfields Ltd., Post Sakhra, Tah. Wani, Distt. Yawatmal (M.S.) – 445037. V/s. Party No.2: Shri S.W. Waghmare, Area Secretary, All India SC/ST/BC Employees Co-ordination Council, Wani Area, Qr. No. B-15 Ramnagar Colony, PO : Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur. Chandrapur (M.S.) 442505. AWARD (Dated: 26th March, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Mungoli O/C Mines, Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workman through Area Secretary All India SC/ST/OBC Class Employees Coordination Council for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/25/2016 (IR(CM-II)) dated 03.06.2016, with the following schedule:- ―Whether the demand by Area Secretary of All India SC/ST/BC Employee Co-ordination Council Wani Area, Tah: Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur over the issue of anomaly in pay fixation or pay disparity in respect of Shri N.R. Nandekar, Senior Mechanic, Mungoli O/C Mines, Tah: Wani, Distt. Yavatmal is just, fair & legal ? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 30/01/2020. Although the statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove the contents of the statement of the claim. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER The demand by Area Secretary of All India SC/ST/BC Employee Co-ordination Council Wani Area, Tah: Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur over the issue of anomaly in pay fixation or pay disparity in respect of Shri N.R. Nandekar, Senior Mechanic, Mungoli O/C Mines, Tah: Wani, Distt. Yavatmal is unjust, unfair & illegal. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3913 नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 972.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a - सह- नागृरु ds iapkV ( / - ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/118/2022-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2022-23) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/04/2025. [F. No. L-22012/118/2022– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/34/2022-23 Date: 27.03.2025. Party No.1: 1) The General Manager, Chandrapur Area of WCL, Distt. Chandrapur-442401. 2) The Sub- Area Manage, Durgapur Sub – Area of WCL, PO- Urjanagar, Chandrapur, Pin – 442402. V/s. Party No.2: The President, RKKMS (INTUC), Netaji Subhash Bhavan, Shakti Nagar, PO- Durgapur, Distt. Chandrapur – 442402. AWARD (Dated: 27th March, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL, and their workman, Shri Shanker Khatri for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/118/2022-(IR(CM-II)) dated 05.01.2023, with the following schedule:- ― Whether action of the management of WCL in not considering Shri Shanker Khatri for promotion to Auto Electrician Grade-A is fair, legal and justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the management Shri Mayur D. Mainde is present before the Court. But none is present on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 07/05/2024 i.e. last four dates. Although petitioner has filed his statement of claim but no written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent till date. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove the contents of the claim. He is notcoming to the Court since last four dates. Hence, it appear sthat petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the management of WCL in not considering Shri Shanker Khatri for promotion to Auto Electrician Grade-A is fair, legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer3914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025 का.आ. 973.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्ल ू सी एल d izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a - सह- नागृरु ds iapkV ( / - ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y-22012/101/2014-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II] मजणकंदन. एन, उृजनदेिक New Delhi, the 28th May, 2025 S.O. 973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2014-15) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/04/2025. [No. L-22012/101/2014– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/76/2014-15 Date: 26.03.2025. Party No.1: 1) The Sub Area Manager, WCL, Neeljay Sub Area, Post-Belora, Tah-Wani. Dist. Yawatmal-445105. 2) The Chief General Manager, W.C.L. Wani Area, Post Jagram Tadali, Chandrapur (M.S) 445304. V/s. Party No.2: The Secretary, All India SC/ST/OBC Class Employees Coordination Council, Ramnagar Colony, Ghugus, Chandrapur (MS)-442505. AWARD (Dated: 26th March, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL, Neeljay South Sub Area and their Union, All India SC/ST/OBC Class Employees Coordination Council for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/101/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 19.02.2015, with the following schedule. ―Whether the demand of union raised vide their representation No. WCL/SC/ST/BC. Emp/ Vase/ 109 (2) dated 01/03/2013 (Annexure enclosed) is just, fair or legal ? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. A.D. Gabhane holding brief of Shri P.V. Ghare is accidently present today only before the Court. Otherwise, both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 30/01/2020. Although earlier, petitioner as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3915 written statement respectively. But later on, one application dated 19/12/2018 has been filed by the petitioner to collect some documents and for filing fresh statement of claim. But since filing this application, no one is coming to the Court to press on this application from the side of petitioner. Hence, this application is rejected being not pressed. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove the contents of the statement of claim to establish his claim. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The demand of union raised vide their representation No. WCL/SC/ST/BC. Emp/Vase/109(2) dated 01/03/2013 (Annexure enclosed) is unjust, unfair or illegal. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 974.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (144/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y –12012/61/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.144/2002) 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. [F. No. L-12012/61/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 144/2002 [Old ID No.39/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri B. Shankaraiah, S/o B. Ramaiah, H.No.10-3-132, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad -503001. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office,3916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/61/2000-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. 39/2000, 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 B. Shankaraiah, 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. 144/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management. 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out 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:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3917 (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 1991 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975. 5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖. 6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent 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 directions3918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3919 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 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.3920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. 17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3921 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 W14. 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 intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W3 is panel list. Ex.W4 to W12 are the service certificates. Further, Ex..W13 is illegible copy of the notification issued by the Respondent management. Ex. W14 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. 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 :-3922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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, Shraddanandgunj branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri B. Shankaraiah, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by him in the claim statement? IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for? Findings:- 25. Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:- (p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer; Section 18(1) provides as follows:- 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. - [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:- ―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖ Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3923 which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties. In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:- ―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1). 14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖ It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement. Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony3924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3925 Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" ―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947. 29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that, ―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary attender in the branch.‖…….3926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ―I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank.‖ Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis. 30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect. 31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997. 32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order. 33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order. 34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3927 of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. 36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. 37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same. In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- ―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever3928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 Attendar (temporary)in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in terms of the settlements entered into between the bank and the union in the year 1992. Further, witness states, 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. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3929 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 31.3.19967 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 the3930 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity. 9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme. 46. In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman. Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:- In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖ In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon‘ble High Court have held, ―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act.‖ In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖ In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman. 47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3931 as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established. This point is answered against the Workman. 48. Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri B. Shankaraiah, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 28th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer3932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri B. Shankaraiah 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 service certificate Ex.W11: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W12: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W13: illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent Ex.W14: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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 ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 975.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a206/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. एल-12012/110/2000-आई आर(बी-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3933 New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 206/2002) 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-12012/110/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 206/2002 [Old ID No.102 /2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri R. Malakshmaiah, S/o Pullam Raju, R/o 26/559, Raju complex, Ramalaya Temple, Bhakatavasala Nagar, Nellore -524004. … Petitioner And The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region-II, Tirupathi-517501 …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/110/2000-IR(B.I) dated 13.7.2000 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.102/2000, 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, Nellore branch in terminating the services of Sri R. Malakshmaiah, Ex. Temporary Messenger, 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. 206/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.3934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited. 9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered; (1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!; (2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated: (3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, (4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖ Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1991 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 5 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3935 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 (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 extend3936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice. 9. The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87, 16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90 stated in its counter affidavit that as follows: "Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered. As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies. It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives". 10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97. 12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3937 Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the Constitution of India. 13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies.The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits. 14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments. 15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a3938 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. 17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs." 18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3939 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 W6. 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 is the service certificate. Ex.W5 to Ex.W7 are the service certificates. 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, ADB Anantapur branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri R. Malakshmaiah, 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;3940 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Section 18(1) provides as follows:- 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. - [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:- ―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖ Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties. In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:- ―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1). 14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3941 It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement. Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year.Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman3942 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3943 In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" ―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947. 29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that, ―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange and I did not undergo the required selection process for appointment in the bank. ‖ ―I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank.‖ Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis. 30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect. 31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997.3944 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3945 cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. 37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same. In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- ―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖ Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable. 38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list. 39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:-3946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ―I applied in response to the advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlements…. Further, witness states, The panels are prepared as per the number of days of service of put in by the temporary employees. Some of the employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment as per the settlement in order of their seniority….‖ Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997. 40. However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any authority. 41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days. 42. In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:- ―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages; (iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service; (iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of Article 14; and (v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3947 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 31.3.19967 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 adopt3948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖ In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon‘ble High Court have held, ―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act.‖ In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖ In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman. 47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3949 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri R. Malakshmaiah, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 29th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri R. Malakshmaiah 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 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. 27.1.19973950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 976.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a148/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. एल-12012/74/2000-आई आर(बी-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.148/2002) 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-12012/74/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 148/2002 [Old ID No.64/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri M. Muthaiah, S/o Sayanna, H.No.3-33, Post: Baroipur (M) Ditchpally, Dist. Nizamabad -503230. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office,[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3951 Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/74/2000-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.64/2000, 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 M. Muthaiah, 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. 148/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management. 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out 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 limit3952 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 1985 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 8 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975. 5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖. 6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3953 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 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 Management3954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3955 above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. 17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the3956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs." 18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated. 19. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief. 20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W11. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:- Ex.W1 is the notification. Further, Ex.W2 is the panel list. Ex.W3 to W9 are the service. Further, Ex..W10 is illegible copy of the notification issued by the Respondent management. Ex. W11 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3957 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, Main branch, Nizamabad in terminating the services of Workman Sri M. Muthaiah, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by him in the claim statement? IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for? Findings:- 25. Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:- (p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer; Section 18(1) provides as follows:- 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. - [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:- ―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖ Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 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.3958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:- ―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1). 14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖ It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement. Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3959 Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:-3960 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" ―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ 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 regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary attender in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the availability of work in the branch.‖[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3961 ―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 he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect. 31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997. 32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order. 33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order. 34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot 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 management3962 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. 36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. 37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same. In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- ―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3963 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 Attendar in response to an advertisement issued by the bank in terms of settlemens entered into between the bank and the union in the year 1989. Further, witness states, 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. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment 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 binding3964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 31.3.19967 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:-[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3965 ―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity. 9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme. 46. In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman. Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:- In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖ In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon‘ble High Court have held, ―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act.‖ In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖ In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman. 47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees3966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established. This point is answered against the Workman. 48. Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri M. Muthaiah, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 28th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri M. Muthaiah MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3967 Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification Ex.W2: Photocopy of Panel list Ex.W3: Photocopy of service certificate 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 illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent Ex.W11: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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 ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 977.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a238/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. एल-12012/160/2001-आई आर(बी-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 238/2001) 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-12012/160/2001- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director3968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 22nd day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 238/2001 Between: Sri B.R. Prabhakar, S/o B. Rajaiah, H.No.152, Doveton Bazar, Bolarum, Secunderabad-10. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/160/2001-IR(B.I) dated 3.10.2001 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question: SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri B.R. Prabhakar, Temporary/Non-.Messenger, SBI with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖ After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 238/2001 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3969 petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out 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 20.3.2019. 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 1991 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975. 5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is3970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice. 9. The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87, 16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90 stated in its counter affidavit that as follows: "Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3971 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. 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 natural3972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits. 14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments. 15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3973 panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. 17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs." 18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated. 19. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements3974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 W44. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:- Ex.W1 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with the Respondent branch for total 102 days. Further, Ex.W2 is the notification and Ex.W3 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W4 is absorption and empanelment list. Further, Ex.W5 to Ex.W42 are service certificates. Ex.W43 is Photocopy of notification through Employment Exchange for filling up vacancies. Ex.W44 is the Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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, HAL Campus branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri B.R. Prabhakar, 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3975 the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:- ―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖ Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties. In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:- ―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1). 14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖ It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement.3976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3977 (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"3978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 29. For the purpose of calculation of 240 days of continuous service of workman, the provision continued under Section 25 F read with Section 25 B of the I.D. Act 1947 is relevant. As per settled law that the initial burden of proof lies on the workman to prove the fact of 240 days of continuous service with Respondent. The workman has filed documents Ex. W41 and W42 in support of his claim. The perusal of these documents goes to reveal that the Respondent management had issued a certificate dated 1.4.1997 which goes to show that the Workman Sri B.R. Prabhakar had worked with the respondent management from 8.5.1996 to 23.11.1996 for 200 days. Further Ex W42 is another certificate dated 11.4.1997 issued by the Respondent management that goes to show that the Workman Sri B.R, Prabhakar had worked in the branch of Respondent management as a temporary messenger for the period of 120 days from 2.12.1996 to 31.3.1997 i.e. till the date of his termination. Thus on the basis of these documents it is clearly established that Workman had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e. 31.3.1997. Therefore , he is intitled from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Therefore, he is intitled for one month notice in writing before his retrenchment or payment of wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice and also entitled for compensation as per provision continued under Section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 which provides condition precedent to retrenchment of Workman. However records goes to reveal that the Respondent has not givern any notice to the Workman before his retrenchment with effect from 31.3.1997 , nor has paid at the time of retrenchment of workman any compensation as per provision continue Section 25-F of the I,D. Act, 1947. 30 In support of his claim the Workman has examined himself as WW1 and his sworn testimony he has deposed that he had worked for102 days at HAL campus branch of State Bank of India. Further WW1 states that he has worked for a total period of 1895 days of HAL campus branch, IBD main branch, Market Street branch and HAL campus branch at various periods. Ex. W5 to Ex.W42 are the total service certificates. Further WW1 states that bank has taken his services in the capacity of petty cash also showing inspite of his being he has been empanelled. Ex W21 to W38 are the certificate issued to him under the petty cash. Further WW1 states that it is clear from the exhibits mentioned that he has been empanelled after selection process. Further, WW! States that Ex. W$ which is his absorption letter, the bank has given clear instructions to the managers not to give more than 240 days. It is still an enigma tha spite of exhausting the procedure of recruitment and selection and having clear vacancies the bank has in its own known wisdom has given the workman breaks. Further, WW1 states that in the year 1995 vide Ex. W39 and Ex. W40 he has worked for 349 days in the one calendre year. As well, he had again worked in the year 1996 for 349 days which is Ex. W41 Ex. W42 shows that in the year 1997 i.e. from 1.1.1997 to 31.3.1997 he has worked for 90 Days. 31. Further WW1 states, that Respondent management asked the workman orally on 31.3.1997 not to come to the duty from the next day. When the Workman asked reason for his termination the Manager concerned replied that these were strict instructions from the higher authorities. Further WW1 States that he had givern representation to the management but it was not accepted and he was asked to go out. Further, WW1 States that bank authorities has neither issued any notice nor any pay in lieu thereof. The authority has violated all the statutory norms which are mandatory under the law. Further. WW1 States that he had worked continuously from 1991 to 1997 with unblemished service and with a hope which has imparted upon him by the authorities that he would be made permanent in near future. With this belief Workman worked on regular basis and Respondent extracted his service with less pay which is also violate of his fundamental right to 'equal pay for equal work.'[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3979 32. From the above statement of WW1 and on the basis of documentary evidence it is clear that the Workman had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e. 31.3.1997 Further, WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel but nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to discredit the testimony of this witness or to make it unbelievable. Respondent counsel gave the suggestion to the WW1 but the witness replied that it is not true to say that he has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year in his entire service in any branch of the bank. Further, the witness in his cross examination states that it is not true to say that said exhibits are prepared by him and they are not genuine. It is not true say that workman have not worked for 240 days in the bank and that he is giving false depositions. Further, Respondent in his counter has not pleaded that before oral termination of the Workman 31-3-1997 any notice or notice pay or composition was paid to the Workman in accordance of provision contained u/s. Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and failed to produce any evidence to this effect on record. Therefore, it is clearly established that the termination of the Workman from service by the Respondent vide oral order dated 31.3.1997 is in contravention of the provisions contained under Sec 25F of the I.D. Act 1947 and action of Respondent in terminating the services of workman vide order dated 31.3.1997 is illegal and not justified This point is decided in favour of the Workman. 33. Point No. IV:- In view of the discussions and finding given at Point Nos. I and II, it is established the Petitioner Workman is not entitled for regularization in the services of the Respondent Managements. However, in the view of the finding given at Point No. III it is established that the termination of the Workman from service vide oral order dated 31.3.1997 by the Respondent is in contravention of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, illegal and not justified. 34 Now, let us use in view of his illegal termination order to what relief the workman is entitled for? In this context the reference of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services AIR 2010 SCC page 502 is relevant wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held- 8. In the case of Sita Ram V Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute 2 This Court conducted the matter thus: "21. The questions which however, falls for our consideration is as to whichever the Labour Court was justified in awarding reinstatement of the appellant in service. 22. Keeping in view of the period during which the services were rendered by the respondent (Sic appellant) the fact that the respondent had stopped its operation of bee farming and the services of the appellants were terminated in December, 1996 we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellents could have been directed to be reinstated in service. 23. Indispatched, the Industrial Court exercise a discritionary jurisdiction but such direction is required to be exercised judiciously. Relevant factors thereof were required to be taken into consideration the nature of appointment, the period of appointment the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the court for determination of such an issue. 24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of adequate amount of compensation to place of a directions to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would subsidies the parts of justice (See Jaipur Development AuthorityV; Ramshai [(2006 1 SCC684]M.P. Admn.V Tribubhan (2007) 9 SCC 748]and Uttaranchal Forest Development Corp.V M.C. Joshi (2007) 9 SCC z(353) 25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that payment of a Sum of Rs. 1,00.000 to each of the appellents, would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the afteramounted extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case there shall be no order as costs} 9. The afore –referred two decisions of this Court and few more decisions were considered by as in the case of the Gogbhir JT 2008 (3) SCC 622)Singh Vs.Haryana State of Agriculture Marketing Boards albet to the procurement of a daily wager in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more than 240 days in a year and we obsvered thus: "7. It is true that earlier view of the Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal positions that of this termination of an employees was found to be illegal the relief of reinstatement with full bacj wages would ordinarily follow. Howevewr in recent past there has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of cases, this Court has continuously taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement of back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inapporopriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employer it in contradiction to the prescribed procedure Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of Justice" Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hom'ble Apex Court discussed above in the matter at hand, the Workman has been terminated long back in the year 1997 from the service by the Respondent in contravention of the provision contained under Section 25-F. He was working as a temporary messanger and not worked on a regular permanent post. Since more than 25 years has already been passed since this termination from Respondent service and he had worked as temporary workman for a period of six year i.e. 1991 to 1997. Therefore, keeping in view of the nature of3980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] appointment and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the award of compensation in place of direction to be reinstated in the service would be appropriate in case of such nature that could subserved and to meet the end of justice. Thus, in view of the above the Workman in this case is entitled for compensation instead of direction for reinstatement into service. 35. Now question arises how much compensation would meet ends of justice. In view of the circumstances of the case. Workman has served in the service of the Respondent management from 1991 to 1997 and has also gone under physical and mental agency during long period of litigation for more than 24 years at different levels. In the opinion of the court payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the Workman for his illegal termination from service would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the claim statement is partly allowed. This Point is answered accordingly. ORDER The action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri B.R. Prabhakar, Temporary Messenger, with effect from 31.3.1997 is not justified. Therefore, Respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman in lieu of termination within two months from the date of receipt of this award. The claim of workman for the relief of regularization of service is rejected. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 22nd day of April, 2025.. IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri B.R. Prabhakar MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter Ex.W4: Photocopy of panel list 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 service certificate Ex.W11: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W12: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W13: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W14: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W15: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W16: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W17: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W18: Photocopy of service certificate[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3981 Ex.W19: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W20: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W21: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W22: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W23: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W24: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W25: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W26: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W27: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W28: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W29: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W30: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W31: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W32: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W33: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W34: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W35: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W36: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W37: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W38: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W39: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W40: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W41: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W42: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W43: Photocopy of notification through Employment Exchange for filling up vacancies Ex.W44: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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 10.8.983982 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 978.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a157/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. एल-12012/39/2000-आई आर(बी-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 157/2002) 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-12012/39/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 157/2002 [Old ID No.56/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri P. Narayanaswamy, Raptadu (Mandal & Post), Raptadu, Dist. Anantapur. … Petitioner And The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/39/2000-IR(B.I) dated 13.7.2000 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.56/2000, 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:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3983 SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, ADB branch in terminating the services of Sri P. Narayanaswamy, Messenger, from the services of the Bank by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?‖ After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 157/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management. 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited. 9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered; (1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!; (2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated: (3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, (4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖ Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1990 to 1995, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 6 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.3984 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 (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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3985 8. Further, Workman submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.9206/97, the bank has submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre. It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent or need or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a façade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand, keep the employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice. 9. The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87, 16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90 stated in its counter affidavit that as follows: "Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive Months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25-F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. Para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1.1 1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be Seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered. As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies. It is further submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives". 10. The Workman submits that the bank also referred a subsequent settlement dated 9.1.1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect- that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9.1.1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the Workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/ attendars/ sweepers etc., even after the judgment of Hon‘ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the Workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4194/97, dated 5.3.97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9.1.1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Workman submits that in W.P. No.4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees where in they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized3986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17.11.87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31.3.97. 12. Further, it is submitted that in the clause of Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed/appointed in the bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be appointed either for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the Workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. The management committed unfair labour practices and terminated the services of the candidates with effect from 1.4.1997 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter -III of the Constitution of India. 13. The Workman submits that it is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.2.1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the Workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the Workman after 31.3.97 who had served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec.25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits. 14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments. 15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3987 by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. 17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on3988 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 W6. 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 is the service certificate. Ex.W5 is the service certificate. Ex.W6 is the service certificate. 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, ADB Anantapur branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri P. Narayanaswamy, 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3989 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 have3990 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖ It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement. Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3991 Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖3992 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" ―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947. 29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that, ―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my appointment 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3993 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 hereinafter3994 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. 37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same. In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- ―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖ Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable. 38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3995 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 made an application in response to the advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlement…. Further, witness states, The panels were prepared basing upon the number of days of service of the temporary employees. The temporary employees from the panel were given regular appointment in order of their seniority…. Further witness states, I am not having any evidence to show that any of my juniors are continuing in the 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 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;3996 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of Article 14; and (v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen. Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages. 43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 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:-[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3997 In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖ In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon‘ble High Court have held, ―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act.‖ In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖ In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman. 47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 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,3998 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri P. Narayanaswamy, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 29th April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri P. Narayanaswamy 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 3999 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 ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 979.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a118/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. एल-12012/73/2000-आई आर(बी-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 118/2002) 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-12012/73/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 118/2002 [Old ID No.50/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri D. Gangaram, S/o Gangaram, Vill: Amruthapur, Vis: Mandal Ditchpally, Post: Chanpur, Dist.Nizamabad -503175. … Petitioner4000 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/73/2000-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.51/2000, 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 D. Gangaram, 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. 118/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management. 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4001 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 Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Non-Messenger from 1991 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975. 5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖. 6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent 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 were4002 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4003 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 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.4004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments. 15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4005 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 W10. 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 and Ex.W3 is the panel list. Ex.W4 to W8 are the service certificates . Further, Ex..W9 is illegible copy of the notification issued by the Respondent management. Ex. W10 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. 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 proceedings4006 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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, Main branch of Nizamabad Districtin terminating the services of Workman Sri D. Gangaram, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by him in the claim statement? IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for? Findings:- 25. Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:- (p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer; Section 18(1) provides as follows:- 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. - [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:- ―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖ Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4007 entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties. In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:- ―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1). 14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖ It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement. Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the4008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4009 months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" ―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies4010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary non-messenger. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the availability of work 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 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 राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4011 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:-4012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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 non- messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in terms of the settlements entered into between the bank and the union. Further, witness states, The panels were prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by the temporary non-messengers. Some of the temporary non-messengers whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4013 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 31.3.19967 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.4014 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity. 9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme. 46. In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman. Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:- In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖ In the case of State Bank of India, R.O., Vijayawada vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad WP No.193/1997, therein Hon‘ble High Court have held, ―Sri Krovvidi Narasimham, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends, supporting the award that it was a permanent vacancy and even though the 2nd respondent was appointed on temporary basis, his services were not liable to be terminated and he was to be regularised into service on permanent basis. Shastry award warrants that no temporary appointment can be made to a permanent post. But the matter is now covered by two division bench judgements dated 28.11.1986 in W.A. No.791 of 1986 and 25.8.1987 in W.A. No.270 of 1982. The ratio decided in the two judgements is to the effect that there cannot be any mandate to appoint employees on permanent basis when the requirement was for appointment on temporary basis. But it is held in the said judgements that when a temporary appointee is ousted from service and not for misconduct and, if again temporary appointment is to be made, then, the case of such temporary appointee who was ousted, has got to be considered in accordance with Sec. 25-H of the Act.‖ In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others. 1992 (4) SCC 118, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ― 49. If for any reason an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4015 consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the state.‖ In the above cited judgements by the Workman the facts of the case are different hence do not apply to instant case of Workman. 47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents, Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover, the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established. This point is answered against the Workman. 48. Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri D. Gangaram, Ex. Non-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.4016 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 28th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri D. Gangaram 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 illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent Ex.W10: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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 ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 980.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्रीय सरकार प्रबधं जनदिे क, गप्तु जाचं और सरु क्षा सवे ाए,ं जसकंदराबाद, कायकध ारी जनदेिक, फुटजवयर जडजाइन और जवकास सस्ट्ं थान, हदज राबाद, एलएन आउटसोस ध प्राइवटे जलजमटेड, हदज राबाद, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सश्रु ी लबु ानी[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4017 जमिाल और 13 अन्य, तले गं ाना, के बीच अनुबंध म ें जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह-श्रम न्यायालय- हदज राबाद ृंचाट(संदभध सं्‍या 30/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें ददखाया गया ह,ज प्रकाजित करती ह ज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 03.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल-42025-07-2025-130 -आई आर(डीय)ू ] ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. 30/2024) 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 the The Manging Director, Secret Investigation and Security Services, Secunderabad; The Executive Director, Footwear Design & Development Institute, Hyderabad; LN outsources Pvt Ltd.,Hyderabad and Ms. Lubani Mishal and Thirteen others, Telangana, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 03.06.2025. [No. L-42025-07-2025-130- IR(DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 23rd day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 30/2024 Between: Ms. Lubani Mishal and Thirteen others, H.No. IR, 1-16/1/1198, Plot No. 1189, Siddiq Nagar, Street No. 9, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy, Telangana-500032. ..…. Petitioner AND 1. The Manging Director, Secret Investigation and Security Services, Room No. 10, 6th Floor, Srinath Commercial Complex, Patny Centre, SD Road, Secunderabad-500003. 2. The Executive Director, Footwear Design & Development Institute, Survey No. 06 to 38, LID CAP NILEX Campus, HS Dargah, Raidurgam, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500014. 3. LN outsources Pvt Ltd., Plot No. 46/P, Ist Floor, Srivan Enclave, Near UMCC Hospital, Gajularamaram, Hyderabad-500055.4018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] …Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: K.V.R Chowdary, Advocate of R1 R.S Sravan Kumar, Advocate of R2 AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 8/18/2024-B1 dated 30.05.2024 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 Secret Investigation and Security Services, & 2 other and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of management of Secret Investigation and Security Services, (SISS), Secunderabad- contractor in terminating the services of 14 contract workmen (as mentioned in Annexure-A to the FOC Report) in the establishment of Footwear Design & Development Institute, Hyderabad is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to? The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 30/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice sufficient opportunity accorded petitioner failed to filed any claim statement. It seems he don‘t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, ‗Nil Award‘ is passed. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of April, 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 ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 981.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdka s vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a113/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. 12012/72/2000-आई आर(बी-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.113/2002) 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-12012/72/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4019 ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 113/2002 [Old ID No. 50/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri S.P. Varambabu, S/o Venkat Swamy, H.No.6-15-284, D. Sanjeevaiah Colony, Nizamabad -503002. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/72/2000-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.50/2000, 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 S.P. Varambabu, 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. 113/2002 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 was4020 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited. 9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered; (1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!; (2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated: (3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, (4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖ Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1986 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 11 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4021 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 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. The4022 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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. 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4023 justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits. 14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments. 15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the4024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. 17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs." 18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated. 19. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4025 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 W10. 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 and Ex.W3 is the interview call letter. Ex.W4 is panel list. Ex.W5 to W8 are the service certificates . Further, Ex..W9 is illegible copy of the notification issued by the Respondent management. Ex. W10 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. 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, Nizamabad Main branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri S.P. Varambabu, 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 and4026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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,[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4027 rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and4028 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (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)[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4029 Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947. 29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that, ―I have not been sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the availability of work 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 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 in4030 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4031 employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. 37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same. In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- ―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖ Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable. 38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list. 39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:- ―I applied for appointment as messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union in the year 1992. Further, witness states, 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. He is not aware of settlements. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment 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 himself4032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997. 40. However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any authority. 41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days. 42. In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:- ―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages; (iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service; (iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of Article 14; and (v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen. Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages. 43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4033 occasion to extend the life of panel lists beyond 31.3.1997. However, the workman failed to prove contrary by any evidence to the aforesaid contention of the Respondent that the vacancies were existing as on 31.3.1997 and the workman was not given absorption to the permanent post in order of his seniority. It is settled law that the power to create permanent or sanctioned post lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularization would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service. Therefore, the claim of the workman on this ground also not acceptable. 44. Further, as per the of settlement, panel was prepared for absorption of the workmen on the permanent posts has already been lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the vacancies existing and arising upto 31.12.1994 and upto 31.3.1997 as settlement dated 30.7.1996 has been filled up from the panel by appointing the workmen as per seniority in the panel list. Workman witness WW1 in his cross examination has himself admitted this fact that, some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. The Workman failed to show that there was any breach of terms of settlement has been committed by the Respondent in appointment to permanent post from aforesaid panel list. 45. As discussed in preceding paragraph of this Award, the life of the panel has not been extended beyond 31.3.1997, by any further settlement hence, the panel list in which name of the Workman was included got expired on 31.3.1997. It is not the case of the Workman that Respondent has regularized similarly situated workmen either in the scheme or otherwise and the Workman has been deprived of same benefit on par with those workmen or the vacancies remained unfilled on the date of lapse of panels i.e., 31.3.1997, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997. This Tribunal can not order for regularization of workmen to the permanent post in contravention of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity. 9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, the claim of the Workman for absorption merely on the basis of number of day of work in the Respondent bank Branch is not acceptable. As regard plea of the Workman that the Workman should have been given employment even after 31.3.1997 as temporary Workman, it is the discretion of Respondent to engage the Workman depending upon availability of work and this Tribunal can not direct the Respondent to engage the Workman in the absent of such rule/scheme. 46. In view of principle laid down by Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, in the instant matter Workman utterly failed to establish the fact of rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar months commencing and coming backward from relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment, if has he would be denied to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Therefore, the provision contained under Sec.25F of retrenchment is not applicable to Workman. Counsel for Workman has relied upon number of decisions of Hon‘ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and few of them are discussed herein:- In the case of F.C.I., vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 1993 (1) SCC 71, therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely lo be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but providers for control of its exercise by judicial review.‖4034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4035 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri S.P. Varambabu, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 28th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR. Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri S.P. Varambabu MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter Ex.W4: Photocopy of panel list 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 illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent Ex.W10: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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 panel4036 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 ददल्ली, 10 जून, 2025 का.आ. 982.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्रीय सरकार म्‍ु य महाप्रबधं क, बीएसएनएल एृी सकधल, हदज राबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जृन्नले ी यादजगरी, कजजअु ल मजदरू और 6 अन्य के बीच अनुबंध म ें जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह-श्रम न्यायालय- हदज राबाद ृंचाट(संदभध सं्‍या 2/2012) को जजसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें ददखाया गया ह,जप्रकाजित करती ह ज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 03.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल -40012/13/2011 -आईआर (डीय)ू ] ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 10th June, 2025 S.O. 982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. 2/2012) 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 the Chief General Manager,BSNL AP Circle, Hyderabad and Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri, Casual mazdoor & 6 others, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 03.06.2025. [No. L-40012/13/2011-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 26th day of May, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 2/2012 Between: Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri, Casual mazdoor & 6 others, Rep. by Sri P. Anjaiah, Ex-All India General Secretary for NUTEE(Gr.D) D.No.4-7-266, Padmavathi colony, Hayathnagar, District-501 505. ….. Petitioner AND The Chief General Manager, BSNL AP Circle, Hyderabad. …. Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : M/s. P. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4037 For the Respondent : Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 40012/13/2011-IR(DU) dated 9.1.2012 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, AP Circle, Hyderabad and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of the management of CGM, BSNL, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri and 6 others (List enclosed) and not granting them ‗temporary status mazdoor‘ is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?‖ The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 2/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows: The Petitioners Workmen submit that they were engaged as Casual Mazdoors from 1-1-1994 to 30-9-1996 in the erstwhile Department of Telecommunication of the Central Government. Subsequently, the Divisional Engineer, Department of Telecom, Secunderabad issued orders by letter No.C.Mazdoor/DOT/1993-1994/9 dt.15-3-1994 to engage 500 manpower including the Petitioners Workmen as Casual Mazdoors as a special case to work in R.E. Project between Vijayawada to Nagpur, but the neighbouring SSAs have not been deputed to the said project due to non-availability of manpower. In this list, the Petitioners/Workmen casual labourers who were working in different SSAs i.e. Krishna, Khammam and Warangal, etc. were sent to work in the said Project. It is also stated in the said letter that the ban orders on engagement of casual mazdoors is not applicable to the project works as per the DOT letter dt.22-6-1988 and the S.I. working under their control were directed to engaged them without fail. Thereafter, the Petitioner workmen continued on Voucher payment basis. The relevant payment vouchers are filed herein with for considerations. Further, it is submitted that by proceedings dt.21-11-2000, the Management has regularized the similarly situated persons, who are juniors to the workmen, by giving them temporary status, ignoring them without any rhyme or reason. They were disengaged by the Respondent Management, though there was work, for the reasons best known to them. The Petitioners/Workmen have been pursuing the dispute with the Respondent /Management since 30-9-1996. The Petitioners/ Workmen have already worked more than for a period of 240 days in a calendar year and thus entitled for temporary status. It is submitted that they have been requesting the Respondent s for regularization or to provide regular work still no action has been taken by the Management. They have also made representation through Member of Parliament by letter dt.30-8-2002, which was replied by the Director, BSNL, R.E.Project, Secunderabad saying that the REPC is not having recruitment powers of mazdoors. Another letter dt.20- 11-2002 was also sent by Member of Parliament to the Hon'ble Minister for Telecommunication stating the above facts, to which it was replied by the Minister of State for Communications & IT dt.28-11-2002 and 13-12-2002 he is looking into the matter for grant of temporary status to casual mazdoors worked more than 240 days as on 1-8-1998 left out regularization of casual labour in RE Project, Secunderabad. There the matter kept pending for passing orders. The Petitioners/Workmen submit that, subsequently, they filed Writ Petition No.757 of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad to consider their claim for grant of temporary status and regularization on par with their juniors as stated above. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dt. 16-9-2009 granting leave and liberty to approach the appropriate forum and thereafter they filed the O.A.No.101 of 2010 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Petitioners Workmen submit that the said O.A. was disposed of by an order dt.10-2-2010. It is submitted that the as per the directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, they filed their elaborate representations to the Management along with orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal and also attendance book, etc., on 3-3-2010, the Management instead of appreciating the circumstances and without proper verification of records and without providing opportunity of being heard, has issued the impugned proceedings No.TASTBI20-2/REP/O6-10/33 dt.8-6-2010 on a mechanical way in cyclostyle order with the following: "1). With reference to your representation dated Nil pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 10-2- 2010 in OA No. 101 of 2010 it is informed that the same has been duly considered having regard to the policy and availability of records and it is regretted that it is not open to reengage you as casual labour or grant of temporary status under the scheme dated 07-10-1989 which has exclusive application to casual labour who have engaged prior to 31-10-1989 upto 22-6-1998 and continued as such. The following have been duly taken into consideration for the aforesaid decision. All the casual labours who were eligible as per dated29-9-2000 of DOT were regularized as on time measure. 2). Records pertaining to Railway Electrification Project are not available for the verification of information furnished by you as they have been weeded out as per the retention schedule. The letter of appointment and payment and thereof is requisite record to verify your engagement from 1/1794 to 30/9/96 and the basis for the same while DOT, New Delhi letter NO.270-6/84-STN dt. 22-6-1988 imposed ban on engagement of casual labours including project circle. 3). The certification by the Divisional Engineer about such engagement is not acceptable in the absence of records as4038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] indicated above. 4). It is sated that you have been disengaged as casual labour and also thereafter continued with a contractor and thus there is no employer employee relationship at any point of time thereafter and as such there is no scope to re- engage you as casual labour and also in view of the complete ban as per DOT, New Delhi letter No.269-4/93STN-ll dt. 12-2-1999 and further affirmed vide letter No. 269-4/93/STN-l dt. 15-6-1999 and the said policy is continuing. 5). The violation of provisions of Sec.25F of ID Act 1947 having not been questioned in the appropriate forum at any point of time as such disengagement has been final for all purposes." The Petitioners/Workmen submit that the impugned proceedings dt.8-6-2010 are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides violative of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. it is submitted that when juniors and similarly situated persons were regularized, the Respondent /Management ought to have extended the same benefit to the Petitioners Workmen also. Further the reasoning recorded by the Respondent /Management as mentioned in the clause-(i) of the impugned order stating that the benefit extension of temporary status under scheme dt.7-11-1989 only for casual labours who have engaged prior to 31-10-1985 after 26-8-1988 is not tenable and when the Respondent /Management had extended similar benefit to similarly situated persons having extracted work from the Petitioners/Workmen during subsequent period denial of said benefit amounts to clear act of discrimination and victimization. The Petitioners/Workmen submit that the contention of the Respondent /Management as mentioned in Clause-(i) that records pertaining to Railway Electrification Project are not available is not tenable on the ground that they have weeded out as per the retention schedule. It is submitted that non availability of the records in the department cannot be attributed to the Petitioners/Workmen and the Respondent /Management ought to have accepted the records produced by the Petitioners/Workmen or ought to have called for further information from the Petitioners/Workmen as such on the ground of records are not available denying their right is not tenable, as such second reasoning is not sustainable likewise. The other objection No.(ii) is also not Apart from that, the tenable and it is vague and without any particulars. Petitioners/Workmen submit as per Appendix 5 to P&T Financial Hand Book. Vol.Il(Part I) lays down the period of preservation of accounts records of a Divisional Office, a Telecom District Office, etc., as indicated below:- Classes of records Period of preservation 1 Cash Book To be retained for 10 years 2 Register of Works To be retained for 20 years 3 Labour payments To be retained for 10 years In view of the above the Respondent /Management has to retain the above records and they have to produce the above records in order to show that they were in employment for the periods they were shown to be in employment. Otherwise, adverse inference has to be drawn against the 8 The Petitioners/Workmen submit that regarding para (iv) of the impugned order when similarly situated persons were engaged and records shows the services rendered by the Petitioners/Workmen, the contention that there is no relationship as employer and employee is also not tenable. It is submitted that only the Petitioners/Workmen and similarly situated persons will ask for temporary status or re- engagement. It is submitted, clause (v) of the order is not maintainable in respect of the claims of the Petitioners/workmen as they have been pursuing with Respondent /Management to re-engage them in the Department in view of their past experience. The Petitioners/Workmen submit that the recruitment unit of the territorial circles is the Telecom District concerned in so far as Casual Mazdoors and other regular Divisional cadres are concerned. The non-recruitment units have to obtain their requirement of casual mazdoors from the Telecom District concerned. In this case, since there were no sufficient casual mazdoors in the neighbouring SSAs, the Petitioners/Workmen who were working in Krishna and Khammam were deputed to work in the R.E. Project. Therefore the Petitioners/Workmen submit that at least a week before their retrenchment counting backwards from date of retrenchment. Such a step was not taken by the Respondent /Management. The Railway Electrification Projects have recommended the name of 58 casual mazdoors for consideration of temporary status and they are all juniors to the Petitioners/Workmen. This was brought to the notice all the higher authorities and requested to verify the genuineness and to do justice, the Petitioners/Workmen have also participated strike held in front of the Office of Divisional Engineer, Railway Electrification Project, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad after issue of temporary status to the 79 mazdoors by the Respondent / Management at Nagpur in which the following mazdoors are juniors to the Petitioners/workmen. The Respondent /Management is avoiding to give proper reply in this regard. The photostat copies of working days of the Petitioners/workmen were submitted to the Respondent /Management along with the certificate issued by the then Divisional Engineer. The Petitioners/Workmen submit that many of them have been interviewed and selected to work in R.E.Project under the control of Sri K.Sambi Reddy, S.I.P., Sri P.Chandraiah, S.L.P., and Sri Jagannadha Rao, A.E., R.E.Project, Sri Laxmaiah and Sri D.Vithal Rao, the then Divisional Engineer, R.E.Project, Secunderabad. It is submitted that the R.E.Project carry out the project work from Secunderabad to[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4039 Nagpur during the above period. The said work was under progress between Balarsha and Nagpur, the DOT authorities terminated the Petitioners/Workmen orally without issue of notice under Section 25-F, G and H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 w.e.f. 1-10 1996 leaving the juniors in the department. Whereas, the Petitioners/Workmen have joined in the R.E.Project from 1-1-1994 onwards. This is clear discrimination on the part of the Respondent /Management to terminate orally the services of the Petitioners/Workmen. No service compensation has been paid to the Petitioners/workmen under the I.D.Act, 1947. The Petitioners/Workmen has also worked at Razora Cable Work at Rajora, Balarsha during the period from 1 1-1994 to 31-12-1994, which is 20 KMs away from Balarasha; from Gudur to Korivi MRPTS i.e. Warangal District for erecting antenna during the period from 1-1-1995 to 31-3-1995; worked at Bheemadole to lay down the cable work during the period from 1-4-1995 to 31-12-1995, which is near Eluru, West Godavari District; worked in Stores, cable work in Eluru Town during the period from 1-1 1996 to 30-9-1996 under the supervision of K.Sambi Reddy, P.Chandraiah and Mr.Vittal Rao, the then D.E. has paid their wages. All these records are available with the Divisional Engineer, Railway Electrification Project, Raichur and the said records were made over to the Chief General Manager Office, Hyderabad while shifting office from Secunderabad to Nagpur. To avoid grant of temporary status to the Petitioners/Workmen, the Respondent /Management is not willing to verify the records at this juncture, since, if noticed, the mistake committed by the then officials of the Respondent /Management would be revealed. The persons who worked in the Project along with the Petitioners/Workmen at Nagpur were regularized and they were repatriated to the A.P.Circle in normal circumstances, this extreme step would not have been taken. Since the competent authority to regularize the juniors who worked at the Project along with the Workmen is the CGM AP Circle Hyderabad and not the officials at Nagpur. Quite contrary to the instructions of the DOT/BSNL, the above persons Were repatriated to the AP Circle by letter dt.TA/STB/20-2/REP/2 dt.21-11-2000, which was communicated by letter No.C.Mazdoor/BSNLIDE/RE/SD/2007-08/5 dt. 13-11-2007 of the Divisional Engineer. BSNL, Picket, Secunderabad to Sri P.Anjaiah in reply to a petition submitted under Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, the Petitioners/workmen were denied the similar benefits and thus discriminated without any justifiable cause. The Petitioners/Workmen submit that in the meanwhile the Department of Telecommunication has undergone structural changes and the services rendered by DOT/DTD/DTO have been entrusted to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, a central public sector enterprise. The Petitioners/Workmen hails from poor families and the Respondent /Management ought to have acted as model employer by considering their cases in a positive manner instead of rejecting their claims without any cogent reasons and without verifying the records. The Petitioners/Workmen further submit that the Department of Telecommunications issued Lr.No.269-10/89-STN dt.7-11-1989 introducing a scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization to the casual labourers working in the said Department. Initially the scheme did not cover the part time casual labourers working in the Department. While so, the DoT vide in its Order No.269- 13/99-STN-II dt. 16-9-1999 as one time measure decided to convert the part time casual labourers with four or more hours of duty per day and who have worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months into full time casual labourers. Again the DoT issued Order No.69-13-STN-II dt.25-8-2000 decided to convert part timne casual labourers with less than four hours duty per day and who have worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months full time casual labourers. Subsequently, on the demand of Unions the DoT vide its order No.269-94/98-STN-II dt.29-9-2000 decided to regularize the services of all part time. full time casual labourers and casual labourers with temporary status. In the light of the above orders the Petitioners/Workmen are also entitled for regularization after granting temporary status. The Petitioners/Workmen further submit that they were disengaged without any order or proceedings by the Respondent /Management though they have worked for more than a period of 240 days in a calendar year and thus entitled for protection under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Respondent /Management failed to follow the mandatory requirement under the said provision and thereby the Petitioners/Workmen are entitled to the benefit and protection as envisaged under Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. In order to disengage a person from the rolls of an Industrial Management, being the instrumentality of state under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, the Responders Management has to publish the seniority list of casual mazdoors of Telecom District as per the provisions of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1977 or of the casual Mazdoors working in the existing Sub- Division. The said Rule reads as under: In fact, as per the instructions of the Director General, Telecom, New Delhi issued instruction dt.17-19-1988 in supersession of earlier orders on the subject to streamline the regular absorption or retrenchment of casual labourers laying down that, "77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen: The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the Industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment" In fact as per the instructions of the Director General Telecom, New Delhi issued instruction dated 17.9.1988 in supersession of earlier orders on this subject to streamline the regular absorption or treatment of casual labourers laying down that, 1. A combined seniority list of all casual labourers in respect of a recruitment unit will be maintained. This list will include all casual labourers working within the territorial jurisdiction of the recruitment unit for various functional4040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] units such as Telecom Projects, Maintenance Regions, Electrification and Quality Assurance Circles, etc, to which they are attached. 2. Absorption of Casual Labourers against regular Group "D" posts or retrenchment due to exigencies, such as non- availability of work, will be done strictly according to the combined seniority list. 3. Non-recruitment Circles/Units should ensure that their requirement of Casual Labourers is invariably met through the respective recruitment units concerned of the territorial recruitment circle only.‖ It is submitted that the Petitioners/Workmen are having the records and also the Respondent /Management had considered the similarly situated persons as such they are also entitled for the similar relief. When the workmen submitted against the illegality committed by the Respondent /Management, the application was rejected as time barred by proceedings dt.9-9-2011 of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central), Hyderabad. As against this, the Petitioners/Workmen submitted appeal on 20-10-2011, the delay was condoned and directed them to file claim statement. The impugned proceedings dated 8.6.2010 are ex facie legal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides violative of provisions of Sec.25-F, G, and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, prayed to declare the impugned proceedings dated 8.6.2010 are illegal, arbitrary and violative principles of natural justice etc., and to direct the Respondent to grant temporary status and regularized them etc.. 3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under: It is submitted that the Respondent has been wrongly impleaded since no relief could be claimed with respect to the engagement by the Railway Electrification Project period from 1-1-1994 to 30-09-1996 and is distinct and different and the said engagement is not the concern of the answering Respondent and the communication No.TA/STB- 20/2/REP/06- 10/33 dt.8-06 2010 is pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal and is not relevant for the purpose of the claim and the Hon'ble Tribunal is not vested with any jurisdiction with regard to casual labour as per full Bench decision in A.Padavalli and others Vs. CPWD 1990 (14) ATC914. It is submitted that the Petitioners have raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, on 28-09-2010 resultimg in failure report by the Regional Labour Commissioner and then this reference of the dispute. The composite reference is without any details and the dates apart from the fact that the grant of temporary status does not fall within the scope of Section 2(k) of 1.D.Act, 1947 and the maintainability is to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as amended on 15-09-2010 by Amendment Act, 24 of 2010 stipulated that a dispute could be referred for adjudication before the expiry of 3 years from the date of discharge, dismissal retrenchment or otherwise termination of service and as such barred by limitation and there is no mention of date of termination. Further, it is submitted that the claim petition by Sri.Pinnelli Yadagiri and 6 others without any details as such is not capable of any adjudication and the self supporting documents without any indication as such in the reference is misconceived, baseless and incorreet with no scope for any adjudication and there is no termination by the answering Respondent at any time. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner workmen. 4. On the basis of rival contentions and pleadings of both the parties, following issues emerge for adjudication:- I Whether the action of management of CGM, BSNL, Hyderabad in terminating the services of S/Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri, P. Ram Reddy, M. Upender, P. Ravinder, P. Nageswara Rao, G. Koteswara Rao and K. Mallikarjun is legal and justified? II. Whether the workmen S/Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri, P. Ram Reddy, M. Upender, P. Ravinder, P. Nageswara Rao, G. Koteswara Rao and K. Mallikarjun are entitled for temporary status mazdoor in the Respondent management? III. Whether the claim of the Petitioner workmen is time barred as per provision of I.D. Act, 1947? IV. To what relief the Petitioner workmen are entitled? 5. During the hearing workmen testified witness WW1 and exhibited documents Ex.W1 to Ex.W17. On behalf of the management witness MW1 has filed chief evidence affidavit but no documentary evidence filed on behalf of the Respondent management. Findings:- 6. Issue No.I:- This issue pertains to the question whether the action of Respondent management in terminating the services of workmen S/Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri, P. Ram Reddy, M. Upender, P. Ravinder, P. Nageswara Rao, G. Koteswara Rao and K. Mallikarjun is in contravention of provision contained under section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947, hence not legal. In support of plea made in the claim statement, workmen has examined Witness WW1. In chief statement affidavit WW1 has stated that the workmen were engaged as casual mazdoor from 1.1.1994 in the erstwhile Department of Telecommunication of Central Government. Subsequently, Divisional Manager Department of Telecom, Secunderabad issued order dated 15.3.1994 to engage 500 manpower including the Workmen as casual[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4041 mazdoor as a special case to work in R.E.Project between Vijayawada to Nagpur. But the neighbouring SSAs have not been deputed to the said project due to non-availability of manpower. Further, WW1 states that Respondent disengaged the workmen Petitioners without issuing any notice and without payment of any compensation with effect from 30.9.1996 in contravention of the provision of section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Further, the witness states that they have already worked for more than a period of 240 days in a calendar year, thus, entitled for temporary status. Witness WW1 states that they have been disengaged without any order or proceeding by the Respondent management though they have worked for more than 240 days and thus entitle for protection under section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947. 7. Whereas, the Respondent in his brief counter has denied the allegations made by the Petitioners in the claim statement and has contended that the workmen has raised industrial dispute after expiry of 3 years which is barred by limitation. Further, it is contended that the claim petition filed by the Sri Pinneli Yadagiri and 6 other workmen without any details as such is not capable of any adjudication and without self supporting documents as such the reference is misconceived, baseless and incorrect with no scope for any adjudication further it is contended that there is no termination of the Petitioner by the answering Respondent at any time. 8. Before delving into the question of legality of the action of the Respondent management in terminating the workmen‘s service, it would be apposite to go through the relevant provisions contained under I.D. Act, 1947:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average 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 - 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; Section 25 H provides:- Re-employment of retrenched workmen:- (1) Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. 9. Further, in respect of principle of burden of proof to prove the fact that workmen has completed 240 days of continuous service in Respondent management in a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, few relevant decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts are discussed here under:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere4042 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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: Before a workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act. he has to show that he has been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from service." "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" In the case of GM., BSNL and others V. Mahesh Chand AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1328, wherein the Hon‘ble Apex Court have held, ―It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.‖ Thus, in view of the provision contained under section 25-F, 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 as well as the principle laid down by Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to prove the fact that they have worked with Respondent management for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of their termination i.e., 30.9.1996. 10. In this case WW1 in his chief statement has testified that they had worked for 240 days in a calendar year from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 and Respondent has disengaged them without any order or proceeding in contravention of the provision contained under section 25 F without notice and without paying any compensation. Witness WW1 has been cross examined by Respondent Counsel and WW1 has categorically stated that all the Petitioners were appointed in the year 1994 and they were not issued any appointment letter by the department. Further, Witness states that they were shifted to Bhimadolu junction, Eluru district for cable work and they worked there for one year. WW1 states that they have worked in the department up to 1996 as casual mazdoors. WW1 denied the suggestion that ―It is not true to suggest that the Railway Electrification Project is not relatable to BSNL.‖ Further, WW1 states that they have not filed original appointment letter or payment vouchers issued by the Respondent department. He is not aware how many juniors were given temporary status in the department. Further, WW1 states that it is not true to suggest that Divisional Engineer who have issued the days book has no power to issue the stamp. The copies of day books were issued on their request. 11. Thus, the witness WW1 stood firm in his cross examination in respect of their engagement for work by Respondent for the period from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 and nothing has been elicited to contradict the evidence of witness. The Petitioner Workmen in support of their oral evidence have also filed documentary evidence. Ex.W2 is a letter dated 15.3.1994 issued by office of Divisional Engineer, Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad in reference to selection of casual mazdoors who worked in Railway Electrification Project, Nagpur in place of contract mazdoor. The perusal of this document Ex.W2 goes to show that Respondent has issued list dated 15.3.1994 of the selected casual mazdoor to work in R.E. Project from Vijayawada to Nagpur w.e.f. 1.1.1994 onwards to complete project work and the names of workmen Petitioners are included in the selected list at Sl.Nos.2,6,11,19,21,47 and 48. Thus, Ex. W2 clearly shows that the Respondent management had engaged these Petitioner workmen vide letter[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4043 dated 15.3.1994 with effect from 1.1.1994. Further, the document Ex.W17 is a bunch of photocopies of mazdoor days book. Ex.W17/1 is pertaining to Petitioner Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri, Ex.W17/2 is pertaining to Petitioner Sri Pasham Ram Reddy, Ex.W17/3 is pertaining to Petitioner Sri Mudireddy Upender, Ex.W17/4 is pertaining to Petitioner Sri Pasham Ravinder, Ex.W17/5 is pertaining to Petitioner Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Ex.W17/6 is pertaining to Petitioner Sri Gotu Koteswara Rao, Ex.W17/7 is pertaining to Petitioner Sri K.Mallikarjun. Further, Ex.W17 goes to show that these documents are bunch of days book of Petitioner workmen and contain the details of the period for which period they had worked with the Respondent. Ex.W17/1 to Ex.W17/7 also contained the details of each Petitioners i.e., account number, voucher number and number of days worked and the nature of work manual/month wise. Further, in the last column of Ex.W17, the Respondent‘s Authorised Officer has verified the work days of each workman by affixing his signature and seal of the department. The details of the seal contained designation of Divisional Manager, Telecom Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad. 12. Ex.W 17/1 documents goes to show that the workman Sri P. Yadagiri had worked with the Respondent management, Railway Electrification Project for doing the cable work for the period from 1994 to 30.9.1996 continuously and same has been attested and verified by the Divisional Manager, Telecom Railway Electrification Project by affixing his seal and signature. Similarly, the documents Ex.W 17/2 goes to show that the workman Sri Pasham Ram Reddy had worked with the Respondent management, Railway Electrification Project for doing the cable work for the period from 1994 to 30.9.1996 continuously and same has been attested and verified by the Divisional Manager, Telecom Railway Electrification Project by affixing his seal and signature. Similarly, the documents Ex.W 17/3 goes to show that the workman Sri Mudireddy Upender had worked with the Respondent management, Railway Electrification Project for doing the cable work for the period from 1994 to 30.9.1996 continuously and same has been attested and verified by the Divisional Manager, Telecom Railway Electrification Project by affixing his seal and signature. Similarly, the documents Ex.W 17/4 goes to show that the workman Sri Pasham Ravinder had worked with the Respondent management, Railway Electrification Project for doing the cable work for the period from 1994 to 30.9.1996 continuously and same has been attested and verified by the Divisional Manager, Telecom Railway Electrification Project by affixing his seal and signature. Further, the documents Ex.W 17/5 goes to show that the workman Sri Pinnelli Nageswara Rao had worked with the Respondent management, Railway Electrification Project for doing the cable work for the period from 1994 to 30.9.1996 continuously and same has been attested and verified by the Divisional Manager, Telecom Railway Electrification Project by affixing his seal and signature. Similarly, documents Ex.W 17/6 goes to show that the workman Sri Gotu Koteswara Rao had worked with the Respondent management, Railway Electrification Project for doing the cable work for the period from 1994 to 30.9.1996 continuously and same has been attested and verified by the Divisional Manager, Telecom Railway Electrification Project by affixing his seal and signature. Similarly, documents Ex.W 17/7 goes to show that the workman Sri K. Mallikarjun had worked with the Respondent management, Railway Electrification Project for doing the cable work for the period from 1994 to 30.9.1996 continuously and same has been attested and verified by the Divisional Manager, Telecom Railway Electrification Project by affixing his seal and signature. 13. Thus, from the above discussed documentary evidence it is proved that the Respondent management had engaged the workmen for doing the work in the railway electrification project from 1.1.1994 t0 30.9.1996 as casual mazdoors and these workmen had worked with the Respondent management continuously for 240 days in a calendar year during the aforesaid period without any break. However, Respondent has filed chief affidavit statement of MW1 but this witness has nowhere stated that the Petitioner Workmen were not engaged by Respondent as casual mazdoors and have not done work for Respondent continuously for more than 240 days just preceding from their date of termination. The documentary evidence Ex.W2 and Ex.W17/1 to Ex.W17/7 filed by the Petitioner Workmen has not been contradicted by Respondent from any documents in evidence. Therefore the claim of Petitioners that they have worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year has been established by oral evidence of WW1 and also by documentary evidence Ex.W17/1 to Ex.W17/7. Respondent nowhere in his counter and in his evidence has stated that notices were issued to Petitioner workmen before their termination w.e.f. 30.9.1996 or any compensation was paid before their termination in compliance of the provision contained under section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, the averment of the Petitioner Workmen that they have completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and Respondent did not issue any notice or paid compensation before their termination from service is established and proved by oral and documentary evidence of the Petitioner workmen on record. Issue No.I is decided in favour of Workmen and against the Respondent. 14. Issue No.II:- In this context the Workmen claimed that they have worked in the Respondent management for more than 240 days in a calendar year and thus entitled for temporary status. In this context in oral evidence, WW1 states that they have filed WP No.757/2009 to consider their claim for grant of temporary status and regularization on par with their juniors. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.9.2009 granting leave and liberty to approach appropriate forum and therefore they have filed OA No.101/2010 before Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal has disposed of application vide order dated 10.2.2010 and directed the Respondent management to dispose of the representation of the Workmen. But Respondent instead of appreciating the circumstances and without proper verification of records and without providing the opportunity of being heard has issued the impugned proceedings dated 8.6.2010 in a4044 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] mechanical way in cyclostyle order. Therefore, the proceeding dated 8.6.2010 of Respondent management is ex- facie, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice. Further, it is stated that the Respondent management has regularized juniors to the Petitioner workmen and Respondent management ought to have extended the same benefit to the Petitioners. Further, it is submitted that the reason assigned by Respondent management in the order dated 8.6.2010 is not tenable whereas Respondent has extended similar benefit to similarly situated persons having extracted work from workmen during the subsequent period and denial of said benefit amounts to an act of discrimination and victimization. 15. Perused the record. In compliance of the order of Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad the workmen Petitioners has moved representation for regularization and granting of temporary status to these workmen but the Respondent management has disposed of their representation vide order dated 8.6.2010, and while rejecting their representation Management stated that the claim of the Petitioner Workmen for temporary status/regularization is not acceptable as the Workmen had worked long back in the year 1994 –1996 when the proceeding of granting of temporary status to the Workmen has not taken place as per record the proceeding for granting of temporary status to the Workmen has taken place in the year 2000 and these Petitioner workmen has already been terminated/disengaged from the service on 30.9.1996. Therefore, there was a long gap between the proceeding of granting temporary status to the workmen and the date of termination of these Petitioner workmen on the date of proceeding of granting of temporary status the Petitioner workmen were not in continuous service of the Respondent. Therefore, they cannot claim at par with those workmen who has been granted temporary status by the Respondent. In this context the witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent and in cross examination witness has stated that, ―I am not aware how many juniors workman given temporary status in the department. It is not true that I have not made any juniors who were given temporary status as parties in this ID. It is true that in the photostat copies filed by me showing that we have worked in the department, the names of the Petitioners were not mentioned.‖ Thus, from the above statement of the witness WW1 it reflects that Petitioners have no information about the junior workmen who has been given temporary status in Respondent department as asserted by them. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that Petitioners has claimed the temporary status at par with the juniors workmen, who has been given temporary status in the year 2000 and these alleged junior workmen who have been given temporary status are necessary parties in this case. But the Petitioners has not impleaded these junior Workman as a Respondent in present claim petition. Therefore, the claim statement of the Petitioner is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. However, as per averment of the Petitioners, that they had been terminated from service by the Respondent on 30.9.1996 and as per record Respondent has granted temporary status to workmen in the year 2000 much later from the date of termination of these Petitioner workmen, i.e., after a gap of 4 years. Thus, on the date of aforesaid proceeding, Petitioners were not in continuous service of Respondent. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner workmen for granting temporary status is not maintainable on this ground either. Thus, Issue No.II is decided against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 16. Issue No.III:- Further, Respondent has contended that as per Amendment Act of 2010 the dispute could be referred for adjudication before the expiry of 3 years from the date of discharge/dismissal/retrenchment or otherwise termination of service, under Sec. 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 but the present dispute has been referred beyond the period of 3 years therefore, it is barred by limitation. 17. In this context, perused the record. Admittedly Petitioner workmen has been disengaged/terminated from the service by the Respondent on 30.9.1996. The record reveals that the Petitioner workmen have been pursuing their dispute with the Respondent management by making representation to various authorities and filing petitions in different Courts at different levels, i.e., by filing Writ Petition No.757 of 2009 in the Hon'ble High Court of AP and also filed OA No.101/2010 before the Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Further, in compliance of the order of Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Petitioner workmen have moved their representation dated 3.3.2010 before Respondent and it got disposed of by the Respondent management vide order dated 8.6.2010. Thereafter, the present reference of the dispute has been made by the Government of India vide letter dated 9.1.2012 to this Tribunal for adjudication. Therefore, from the above it is clear that after their termination from service Petitioner Workmen have been pursuing their dispute at different levels before concerned authorities. It is also pertinent to mention here that Petitioners have also approached Labour Commissioner, adjudication officer. Thus, they were continuously pursuing their dispute regarding termination before the authorities at different levels but could not succeed. Further, said amendment of limitation period for raising the industrial dispute within 3 years came to effect on 15.9.2010 whereas the dispute arose much before the Amendment of 2010 in the year 1996. Therefore, the provision of amended I.D. Act, 1947 regarding limitation period for raising their dispute does not apply to the present case of the Petitioners. This issue is answered in favour of workmen and against the Respondent. 18. Issue No.IV:- This issue pertains to the relief clause. In view of the finding given at Issue Nos. I, II & III, the retrenchment/ termination of the Petitioner workmen from service by the Respondent has been established and proved in contravention of the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the termination of these[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4045 Petitioner workmen from service is illegal. Now, question arises as to what relief Petitioner workmen are entitled for their illegal termination from service? In this context, it is settled principle of laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that, ―In case of termination in contravention of provision of section 25F the appropriate relief would be to award the compensation instead of reinstatement into the service.‖ In the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal, Civil Appeal No.10957/2015, Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:- ―It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. V. Santosh Kumar Seal[12], wherein this Court stated: (SCC p.777, para ll) "In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice." ………. ………… 23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.‖ In this context the reference of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi flight Services AIR 2010 SCC page 502 is relevant wherein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―8. In the case of Sita Ram V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute2 this Court considered the matter thus: "21. The question, which, however, falls for our consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding reinstatement of the appellants in service. 22. Keeping in view the period during which the services were rendered by the Respondent (sic appellants); the fact that the Respondent had stopped its operation of bee farming, and the services of the appellants were terminated in December 1996, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could have been directed to be reinstated in service. 23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is required to be exercised judiciously. Relevant factors therefor were required to be taken into consideration; the nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the court for determination of such an issue. 24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of adequate amount of compensation in place of a direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would subserve the ends of justice. (See Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai [(2006) 11 SCC 684], M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748] and Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353]) 25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs." 9. The afore-referred two decisions of this Court and few more decisions were considered by us in the case of Jagbir JT 2008 (3)SC622 Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board3 albeit in the context of retrenchment of a daily wager in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more than 240 days in a year and we observed thus: "7. It is true that earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention to the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice."4046 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Furter, Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S. Mani & Ors. page 2179 is relevant therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―In law, 240 days of continuous service by itself does not give rise to claim of permanence. Section 25F provides for grant of compensation if a workman is sought to be retrenched in violation of the conditions referred to therein. [See Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd.(supra). See also Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and others, etc., AIR 1994 SC 1638] In A. Umarani (supra), this Court held: "Regularisation, in our considered opinion, is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a Statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is also now well-settled that an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Statute and in particular ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (See State of H.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and Another, (1996) 7 SCC 562)." Yet again, in Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. And Another Vs. Digambara Rao and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 262] this Court held: "It may not be out of place to mention that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not by itself be a ground for directing an order of regularization. It is also not the case of the Respondents that they were appointed in accordance with the extant rules. No direction for regularization of their services was, therefore, could be issued." In this present case Petitioner Workman has been terminated long back in the year 1996. They were not engaged or selected against any permanent post and were engaged as casual mazdoors. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to grant compensation to these workmen in lieu of reinstatement and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to each Petitioner workmen for their illegal termination in contravention of provision contained under section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947 would be befitting in the end of justice. The plea of workmen for granting the temporary status this plea is not established by any cogent evidence. Hence, workmen are not entitled for such relief. AWARD In view of the finding given at Issue No. I, the termination/disengagement of the Petitioner Workmen has been held in contravention of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the Petitioner workmen S/Sri 1)Pinnelli Yadagiri, 2) P. Ram Reddy, 3) M. Upender, 4) P. Ravinder, 5) P. Nageswara Rao, 6) G. Koteswara Rao and 7) K. Mallikarjun are entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Two lakhs) each in lieu of reinstatement into the service. Petitioners are not entitled for relief of temporary status. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 26th day of May, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri MW1: Sri Mortha Santhosh Kumar Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photostat copy of appendix-5 of rules regarding destruction of account records pertaining to the accounts audited by the Indian audit department Ex.W2: Photostat copy of letter dated 15. 3 1994 regarding selection of casual majors to work in RE project from Vijayawada to Nagpur in place of contract mazdoors. Ex.W3: Photostat copy of letter dated 10.1.1997 from NUTE Employees Lines Staff and class IV Ex.W4: Photostat copy of better dated 11. 9.2002 from V.H.R.K. Vithal Rao to the D.E., BSNL Ex.W5: Photostat copy of letter of Minister for Communication& Information Technology, New Delhi Ex.W6: Photostat copy of letter of Minister for Communication& Information Technology, New Delhi Ex.W7: Photostat copy of letter dated 10.7.2002 from NUTE Employees Lines Staff and Class IV, Delhi[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4047 Ex.W8: Photostat copy of letter dated 9.8.2002 half Telangana Sadhana Samiti, Khammam district Ex.W9: Photostat copy of letter dated 9.5.2007 issued to Sri P Anjaiah by the respondents Ex.W10: Photostat copy of letter dated 12.9.2002 of the Respondent vide No.BSNL/DE RE SD/E5(1)/02-03/5 Ex.W11: Photostat copy of lr. Dt. 13.11.2007 to to Sri P Anjaiah by the respondents Ex.W12: Photostat copy of lr.No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/2 of the Respondent dt.21.11.2000 Ex.W13: Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.757/2009 dt.16.9.2009 Ex.W14: Photostat copy of order passed in OA No.101/2010 dt.10.2.2010 Ex.W15: Photostat copy of order passed in OA No.100/2010 Ex.W16: Photostat copy of representation of workmen to the RLC(C), Hyderabad dt. 28.9.2010 Ex.W17/1: Photostat copy of details of man days (containing 7 pages) pertaining to petitioner Sri Pinnelli Yadagiri Ex.W17/2: Photostat copy of details of man days (containing 7 pages) pertaining to petitioner Sri Pasham Ram Reddy Ex.W17/3: Photostat copy of details of man days (containing 7 pages) pertaining to petitioner Sri Mudireddy Upender Ex.W17/4: Photostat copy of details of man days (containing 7 pages) pertaining to petitioner Sri Pasham Ravinder Ex.W17/5: Photostat copy of details of man days (containing 7 pages) pertaining to petitioner Sri Pinnelli Nageswara Rao Ex.W17/6: Photostat copy of details of man days (containing 7 pages) pertaining to petitioner Sri Gotu Koteswara Rao Ex.W17/7: Photostat copy of details of man days (containing 7 pages) pertaining to petitioner Sri K. Mallikarjun Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 983.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a112/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [स.ं एल – 12012/67/2000-आई आर (बी -I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 112/2002) 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-12012/67/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director4048 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 28th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 112/2002 [Old ID No.45/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri D. Puliya, S/o Sundhre, H.No.26/10, Rathnagar, Mandal: Bheemgal, Nizamabad -503007. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/67/2000-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.45/2000, 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 D. Puliya, 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. 112/2002 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4049 Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited. 9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered; (1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!; (2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated: (3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, (4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖ Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Non-Messenger from 1988 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 9 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 temporary4050 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice. 9. The Workman submits that the bank had referred in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17.11.87, 16.7.88 and 27.10.88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16.8.90 stated in its counter affidavit that as follows: "Government of India, vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4051 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. 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 without4052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] jurisdiction and is arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.97, Ex.M5 does not own any legal entity, as the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the Workman whose rights are being affected. It is submitted that Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16.8.90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman here. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent Management sent letters to the all similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June, 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the Workman by oral order dated 31.3.97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management be directed to reinstate and absorb the Workman and to grant all incidental and consequential benefits. 14. Per contra, Respondent had filed counter and made a contentions that the reference is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies, etc., and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers, sweeper cum water boys, etc., depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments. 15. Discussions were held and on 17.11.1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17.11.87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4053 prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. 17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs." 18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated. 19. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief.4054 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 W10. 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 and Ex.W3 are the service certificates issued by the Respondent Ex.W4 is panel list. Ex.W5 is the absorption letter. Ex.W6 to W8 are the service certificates . Further, Ex..W9 is illegible copy of the notification issued by the Respondent management. Ex. W10 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. 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, Pallikonda branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri D. Puliya, a Non-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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4055 Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:- ―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖ Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties. In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:- ―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1). 14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖ It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement. Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-4056 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4057 (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" ―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa4058 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947. 29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that, ―I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary non-messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the availability of work 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4059 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 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 bank4060 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. 37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same. In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- ―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖ Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable. 38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list. 39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:- ―I applied for appointment as non-messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in terms of the settlements entered into between the bank and the union. Further, witness states, The panels were prepared basing upon the number of days of service put in by them. Some of the temporary employees/ non-messengers whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment in the bank.‖[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4061 Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997. 40. However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any authority. 41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days. 42. In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:- ―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages; (iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service; (iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of Article 14; and (v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen. Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as discussed above, in the instant matter the Workman utterly failed to prove his claim by adducing any documentary or oral evidence that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling the permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performance was the same work, as regular workmen on lower wages.4062 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4063 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 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 the4064 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri D. Puliya, Ex.Non-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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 28th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri D. Puliya MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service certificate Ex.W3: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W4: Photocopy of lr. Dt.22.1.93 Ex.W5: Photocopy of Panel list Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W7: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W8: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W9: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W10: Photocopy of illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent Ex.W11: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4065 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 ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 984.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a111/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [स.ं एल – 12012/71/2000-आई आर (बी -I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 111/2002) 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 Indiaand their workmen. [No. L-12012/71/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 111/2002 [Old ID No.49/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri G. Kanakaiah, S/o Lachaiah, Hamalwada, H.No.6-7-53, Hamalwada, Nizamabad -503002. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. ….. Respondent4066 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/71/2000-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.49/2000, 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 G. Kanakaiah, 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. 111/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management. 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out 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.‖[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4067 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 Non-Messenger from 1988 to 1996, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 6 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975. 5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖. 6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex M3), then settlement dated 9.1.91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30.7.96 is 5th settlement (Ex M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.95 marked as Ex M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by subsequent 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 the4068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4069 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 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 statement4070 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16.7.88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the Bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17.11.1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27.10.88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para. 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements. Even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time, exercise in full and final, settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9.1.91 herein after referred as 4th settlement and the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only. 16. It is submitted that the administrative set up of the Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) for implementation of bi-partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner(C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.2.1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Sec.2 (p) read with Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27.2.1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the federation‘s affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non- messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Workman who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. 17. Respondent contended that, in fact, the case of the Workman can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements. All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is in compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31.3.1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Workman is also bound under the terms of the said settlement. The settlement does not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4071 settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights for all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises. That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period of panel list got expired on 31.3.97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12964/94, held as follows, "It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which, is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Workmen also. It is not at all the case of the Workman that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Workman had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Workman in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Workman to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Workman that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Workman has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Workman. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs." 18. Further, it is contended that if the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would Come through proper recruitment procedure. As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements. Hence, there is no question of any Legitimate expectation being violated. 19. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No.9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No.86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No.11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No.9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec.25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Workman is not entitled for any relief. 20. In order to fortify his claim Workman has examined himself as WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.W1 to W11. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:- Ex.W1 is the notification. Further, Ex.W2 and Ex.W3 are the service certificates issued by the Respondent Ex.W4 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W5 is panel list. Ex.W6 to W9 are the service certificates showing that workman has worked for a total period of 914 days. Further, Ex..W10 is illegible copy of the notification issued by the Respondent management. Ex. W11 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. 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 :-4072 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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, Shraddanandgunj branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri G. Kanakaiah, a Non-Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by him in the claim statement? IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for? Findings:- 25. Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:- (p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer; Section 18(1) provides as follows:- 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. - [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:- ―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖ Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4073 panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties. In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:- ―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1). 14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖ It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement. Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just4074 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4075 Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" ―14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months, it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year." In a concurring judgment Pathak J. agreed with this interpretation of section 25B(2). Therefore, both on principle and on precedent it must be held that section 25B(2) comprehends a situation where a Workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25B and Chapter VA.‖ Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman to show that he has completed 240 days of the service with the Respondent just preceding from the date of his termination. Further, in respect of the employment of calculating the 240 days service in view of the contents of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947. 29. Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 F and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, we have to examine whether the Workman has discharged his initial burden of proof in respect of his claim of 240 days continuous service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997.4076 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In this context, WW1 in his cross examination has stated that, ―I have not been sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary non-messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the availability of work 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 he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect. 31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997. 32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order. 33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order. 34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4077 35. Point No.III:- In this context, the Workman has contended that the management failed to implement the selected panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the back door methods contrary to the settlements and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings dated 18.11.1993 a copy of the same is filed in the material papers and the same may be read as part of the claim statement. Further, it is submitted that management has to adhere the procedure issued by the Central Government, the instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995, but same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein. The management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the Workman in the month of June 1997 subsequent to issuance of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating the issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, the copies of call letters issued are filed herein along with claim petition. The Workman herein reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the Respondent management to engage the empanelled candidates like the Workman herein even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. 36. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Federation approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of the absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) conducted conciliation proceedings and agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the Management bank. It is submitted that it was agreed between the Federation and the Management that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual labour would be kept alive upto March, 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to under the afore set out settlements will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995 signed by the parties to the dispute is filed as a material paper. Further, it is submitted that the settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30.7.1996 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which is binding on the parties. A copy of this agreement which hereinafter may be referred to as 5th settlement for brevity, is also filed as a material paper. The 5th settlement dated 30.7.1996 whereunder the earlier four settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 were also referred, it was agreed to, by the Federation and the Management bank that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. 37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same. In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- ―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly4078 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 non-messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union in the year 1992. Further, witness states, 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. He is not aware of the settlements. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4079 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 31.3.19967 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.4080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In the case of Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5875/2007 date of judgement 13.12.2007, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- ―8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity. 9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized.‖ 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4081 47. On the other hand, in support of his contention Respondent has examined witness MW1 and MW1 in chief examination states that, Settlements i.e., on 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 were entered into between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation for filling up of the vacancies that arise up to 1994 for those temporary employees who has worked on scale wages. Further, MW1 states that two different panels for messengers and non-messengers as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the bank. There are four modules in Andhra Pradesh and they are Hyderabad, Tirupathi, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. MW1 states that the temporary employees so empanelled were given permanent absorption depending upon the vacancies so arise strictly in terms of the settlement. MW1 states that on 9.6.1995 conciliation proceeding was held before the RLC(C), Hyderabad and in said proceedings it was decided that the panels will be kept live up to 31.3.1997 and vacancies will be filled from both the lists concurrently. A copy of the said minutes of proceedings is Ex.M5. Further, MW1 states that on 30.7.1996 another settlement was entered between the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation providing for filling up of the vacancies arising up to December 1994 in respect of subordinate cadre and daily wage /casual wage employees out of panel so prepared were to be considered against vacancies arising from January 1995 to December 1996, thereafter the said panels lapse. MW1 states that it was also agreed that all the non- messenger positions in subordinate cadre including part time attendants specially provided as leave reserve will be filled before 31.3.1997 and as regards to non- messengerial positions it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned and fallen vacant up to 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established. This point is answered against the Workman. 48. Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri G. Kanakaiah, Ex.Non-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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 28th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer4082 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri G. Kanakaiah MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement/ notification Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service certificate Ex.W3: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W4: Photocopy of interview call letter Ex.W5: Photocopy of Panel list Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W7: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W8: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W9: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W10: Photocopy of illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent Ex.W11: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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 ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2025 का.आ. 985.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a110/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [स.ं एल – 12012/69/2000-आई आर (बी -I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4083 New Delhi, the 5th June, 2025 S.O. 985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 110/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of StateBank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12012/69/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 24th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 110/2002 [Old ID No.47/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri G. Komaraiah, S/o Rajamallu, R/o Gundlapalli, Gunukankupur, (P.O.), Karimnagar dist.. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/69/2000-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.47/2000, 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 G. Komaraiah, 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. 110/2002 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 aggrieved4084 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‘ble High Court vide its‘ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon‘ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon‘ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- ― 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited. 9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered; (1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!; (2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated: (3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, (4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.‖ Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Non-Messenger from 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4085 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 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.4086 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4087 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 was4088 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4089 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 W13. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:- Ex.W1 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with the Respondent branch for total 89 days. Further, Ex.W2 is the notification and Ex.W3 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W4 is panel list. Further, Ex.W5 to Ex.W11 are service certificates. Ex.W12 is illegible copy of the notification issued by the Respondent management. Ex. W13 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. 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, Gunkulkondapur branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri G. Komaraiah, a Non-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;4090 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Section 18(1) provides as follows:- 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. - [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:- ―We have been advised by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panels of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labours of 1992 will lapse by 31.3.1997, it has been decided by Central Office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997.‖ Thus, from the contents of the aforesaid letter, it manifest that Head Office of State Bank of India vide letter dated 25.3.1997 has issued direction to all its branches not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial category from 1.4.1997 due to reason of lapse of both panels i.e., 1989 & 1992 on 31.3.1997 as per terms of settlements entered into by both parties. Further the contents of the subsequent letter dated 27.3.1997 issued by Respondent Management is also direction to Branch Manager, State Bank of India not to make any temporary messengerial category appointment with effect from 1.4.1997 and it has also been communicated to all concerned that the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers maintained by Zonal offices stand lapsed from 31.1.1997. Further, office order dated 31.3.1997 has been issued by Respondent management that goes to reveal that the said office order has been issued to this effect that, ―Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by the competent authority that no one onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be resorted to/engaged/employed.‖ Therefore, it reflects from the contents of the aforesaid orders that the temporary appointment in messengerial category and daily labour has been stopped by the Respondent management with effect from 1.4.1997 because of the lapsed of panel of temporary workers and daily wagers by 31.3.1997. The agreement for lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 is contained in the 5th settlement which has been arrived at between the parties on dated 30.7.1996 with the consensus of both the parties. Therefore, Workman can not challenge the terms and conditions contained in settlement dated 30.7.1996 regarding lapse of panel on 31.3.1997 as agreed between State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation. As per provision contained u/s.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 the said Agreement dated 30.7.1996 is binding on both the parties. In the case of Allied Sales Corporation Secunderabad vs.The Authority Under Andhra Pradesh..... 1990 II LLJ 510 AP para 414, Hon’ble Court have held:- ―4. There was a settlement between the Management and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th April 1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30th June 1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4th February 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Section 18(1). 14. Now the Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the Act is an authority with very limited jurisdiction. It can only decide in the first appeal whether a termination by the management is valid or not and is within the parameters of Section 40 of the Act. The said Authority, in our view, has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the representatives of the Workmen and of the Management, is vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the Management. The Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was never intended by the A.P. Legislature to have jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of a settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act by an Industrial Court. That Parliament has, in fact, constituted Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, with extensive powers cannot be disputed. What we mean to say is that the Authority under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Act has no jurisdiction what-so-ever either to question or to decide about the validity of any such settlements. If parties to a settlement have a grievance about the validity of a settlement, it is for them to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum and they cannot ask an Authority constituted under Section 41(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 with limited jurisdiction, to go into any such question and, that too, incidentally while deciding whether retirement as per the contract of employment, is legal or not.‖[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4091 It is not the case of Workman that aforesaid settlements are vitiated by undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the management. If the Workman feeling aggrieved by any terms of settlement/ agreement on the aforementioned grounds then he can challenge of settlement before a competent authority under the Act, 1947. But here in the instant matter it is not a case of Workman that aforementioned settlement has been entered into between the parties on the ground of undue influence or misrepresentation or coercion. Therefore, Workman is barred to raise any objection in respect of fixing the date of lapse of both panels on 31.3.1997 as agreed between both the parties and Workman can not challenge any terms of said Agreement. Further in the case of Herbertsons Limited Vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors, 1977 AIR 322, Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:- The Tribunal thought that the question of the quantum of membership of the 2nd Respondent did not call for a finding at all in view of 1his Court's order. As observed above that was not a correct assumption. On the other hand, we feel that this view of the Tribunal has led it to approach the matter in an entirely erroneous manner. The Tribunal is, rightly enough, conscious that under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement was binding on the company and the members of the 3rd Respondent union. Even so, the Tribunal devoted nearly half of its order in scanning the evidence given by the company and Respondent No. 3 to find out whether the terms of the settlement had been explained by the President of the union to the workmen or not and whether the workers voluntarily accepted the settlement knowing all the "consequences". This to our mind is again an entirely wrong approach. ―When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other induce- ments. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd Respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settle- ment as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court the 3rd Respondent representing admittedly the large majority of the workmen has stood by this settlement and that is a strong factor which it is difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that all workmen of the company have accepted the settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has since expired and we are informed that the employer and the 3rd Respondent are negotiating another settlement with further improvements. These factors, apart from what has been stated above, and the need for industrial peace and harmony when a union backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted a settlement in the course of collective bargaining have impelled us not to interfere with this settlement. That being the position, we unhold the settlement as fair and just and order that the award of the Tribunal shall be substituted by the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The said settlement shall be the substituted award. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.‖ Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court as discussed above, the contention of the Workman that the date fixed for lapse of empanelled list on 31.3.1997 for appointment to the permanent post vide 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.4092 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4093 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 calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 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 on the basis of evidence 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 have not been sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary non- messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the availability of work in the branch.‖ ―It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service 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 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, there4094 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4095 wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March, 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and Federation and that thereafter the said panels would lapse. It was also agreed that within the framework of the above settlements the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour would be decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation‘s affiliate by the Circle management. It was further agreed that all messenger real vacancies/positions in the subordinate cadre including part-time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled by the end of 31.3.1997. Further, Respondent contended that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Federation‘s affiliate and the bank management regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31.12.1994 has since been completed by central office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned to the circle of the Management bank and it was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached upon. Further, it was agreed between the Federations affiliate and the management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30.7.1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers /casual employees would lapse on 31.3.1997. 37. The Workman has contended that the empanelled list prepared by the Respondent management for appointment of temporary and daily wage Workers to the permanent post cannot lapse unless until it is exhausted by appointing all the empanelled persons and it should continue even after 31.3.1997, i.e., the date fixed for the lapse of panel. It is undisputed that the date of lapse of empanelled list of Workmen has been fixed to 31.3.1997 as mentioned in the settlement dated 30.7.1996, and agreed between the parties. It is settled law that and once the life of panel list lapses on the date as agreed between the parties it cannot be extended beyond that date. In the instant case the panel list of the workmen was valid upto 31.3.1997 in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the 5th Settlement entered into between the parties. As the lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been agreed by State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation through 5th Settlement, the Workman is not competent to challenge the same. In this context I would like to take reference of the decision of the apex court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors vs. Shankar Paul and Ors , AIR 1997 SC 3091, therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- ―Till 1982, the branches of the appellant Bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta regional office of the appellant Bank issued a circular to all of its branches on 14.8.1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from 1.6.1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district employment exchange, and split it up branch-wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the Respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988. By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the Respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on 6.2.1988, we are of the opinion that the Respondents did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel, for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank. Whatever conditional right they had came to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the Respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.‖ Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and in view of the terms and conditions of the 5th Settlement the contention of the Workman that empanelled list should continue even after 31.3.1997 till the last Workman in the panel is absorbed is not tenable. The contention of the Workman is baseless in view of recital in the settlement. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Point No. I regarding binding nature of Settlements and terms and conditions enumerated therein, in view of the provision contained u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, I am of the considered view that life of panels lapsed on 31.3.1997 in view of terms of settlement dated 30.7.1996 and plea of Workman that the panel shall continue even after 31.3.1997 till last man absorbed has no legal force and same is untenable. 38. Undisputedly, settlement agreement dated 30.7.1996 was executed between the State Bank of India and State Bank of India Staff Federation and in that settlement it was agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees will be used for filling vacancies existing as on 31.12.1994 as per the norms agreed between the bank and the Federation. These empanelled workmen were to be given a chance for permanent appointment in the bank against vacancies arising up to December 1994 whereas the daily wagers/ casual employees were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The4096 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list. 39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:- ―I applied for appointment as non-messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union. Further, witness states, 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. He is not aware of the settlements. Further witness states, It is true that I am not having any documents to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service in the bank.‖ Thus, from the above statement of the Workman witness WW1 it is clear that the panel was prepared in terms of various settlements entered into between Staff Federation of State Bank of India and State Bank of India and it was prepared on the basis of number of days of work put in by the temporary employees. Further, the Workman himself admitted that some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel and he is not having any document to show that any person who worked for less number of days than the Workman was given appointment in the bank. Therefore, the allegation of the Workman that the regular appointment has been made by the bank from the panel list in breach of the terms of the settlement and violation of seniority of panel list is not proved by this evidence of WW1. Thus, there is no evidence on record that bank has given the appointment to the temporary employees as well as daily wagers from the panel list 1989 and 1992 in breach of seniority of the temporary employees in the list. There is no evidence of jumbling in the panel list to make appointment of any permanent Workman in breach of the seniority. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent Management has appointed the workmen from panel list in order of seniority and there is no jumbling of workmen in the panel list before it got lapsed on 31.3.1997. 40. However, Workman has taken the plea that the panels of Workmen for absorption in the employment of the Respondent banks (panels of temporary employees and daily wagers) has been lapsed on 31.3.1997 in contravention of terms of settlement as the object of preparing the entire empanelment of temporary and daily wagers was to provide them permanent employment and till the both the panel lists exhausted the panel list cannot be lapsed on 31.3.1997 and the date of lapsing of the panel on 31.3.1997 has been fixed by the Respondent arbitrarily without any authority. 41. In this context, the perusal of Settlement dated 30.7.1996 reveals that the 5th Settlement dated 30.7.1996 was entered under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957. This settlement has been entered into by the competent parties and in this settlement parties thereto agreed that both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees will lapse on 31.3.1997. Thus the date of lapse of panel was fixed by both the parties with consensus under the settlement dated 30.7.1996 and same is binding upon the Workman under the provision of Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover, this issue of binding force of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988 and 9.1.1991 has already been discussed, decided at finding in Point No.I of this award. However, the legality and validity of the aforementioned settlement has not been challenged by the Workman before any competent forum. Thus, claim of Workman that the date of lapse of panel i.e., 31.3.1997 has been fixed arbitrarily by the Respondent bank is untenable. As regard the claim of Workman for his absorption to the permanent post it is settled law that the Workman can not claim his regularization to permanent post merely on the basis of number of working days. 42. In this context the reference of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal 2020(3) SCALE 272, date of decision 7.2.2020 is relevant therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have has laid down principle regarding regularization of the Workman on permanent posts. Hon‘ble Supreme Court have laid down the prepositions of regularization of the workmen to permanent post is as under:- ―(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages; (iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service;[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4097 (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 31.3.19967 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.4098 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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. 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4099 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri G. Komaraiah, Ex.Non-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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 24th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri G. Komaraiah MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper advertisement Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter Ex.W4: Photocopy of panel list Ex.W5: 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 service certificate Ex.W11: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W12: Photocopy of illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent Ex.W13: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999.4100 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 ददल्ली, 6 जून, 2025 का.आ. 986.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj कमांडेंट (जिगेजडयर) इदिन िीसडग स्ट्टड, जहसार ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kts dks vkSj muds deZdkjk s ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीग -1 ds iapkV (01/1997,07/1997,31/1997,37/1997,51/1997,59/1997,67/1997) izdkf’kr djrh gSA [स.ं एल – 42012/204/90- आई आर (बी -I) एल – 42012/215/90- आई आर (बी -I) एल – 42012/261/90- आई आर (बी -I) एल – 42012/252/90- आई आर (बी -I) एल – 42012/265/90- आई आर (बी -I) एल – 42012/289/90- आई आर (बी -I) एल – 42012/247/90- आई आर (बी -I)] सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 6th June, 2025 S.O. 986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/1997,07/1997,31/1997,37/1997,51/1997,59/1997, 67/1997) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Commandant ( Brigader ) Equine Breeding Stud, Hisar. and their workmen. [No. L-42012/204/90- IR (B-I) L-42012/215/90- IR (B-I) L-42012/261/90- IR (B-I) L-42012/252/90- IR (B-I) L-42012/265/90- IR (B-I) L-42012/289/90- IR (B-I) L-42012/247/90- IR (B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4101 ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, H.J.S. 1. ID No. 01/1997, Registered on 01.01.1997, Santokh Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Beldar, working under the Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hisar, R/o Village Peerawali, P.O. Naya Kalan, Tehsil and District Hisar. Arising out of Reference No.L-42012/204/90-IR (DU) dated 30.12.1996. 2. ID No. 07/1997, Registered on 02.01.1997, Baldev Singh S/o Sh. Keshmir Singh C/o The President Distt. Agriculture Workers Union, Gali No.5, H.No.123, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar (Haryana)-125 001. Arising out of Reference No.L-42012/215/90-IR (DU) dated 30.12.1996. 3. ID No. 31/1997, Registered on 02.01.1997, Fateh Singh S/o Sh. Lal Singh C/o The President Distt. Agriculture Workers Union, Gali No.5, H.No.123, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar (Haryana)-125 001. Arising out of Reference No.L-42012/261/90-IR (DU) dated 30.12.1996. 4. ID No. 37/1997, Registered on 02.01.1997, Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh R/o Village Piran Wali. P.O. Nyoli Kalan, Distt. Hissar-125001. Arising out of Reference No.L-42012/252/90-IR (DU) dated 30.12.1996 5. ID No. 51/1997, Registered on 02.01.1997, Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Tiwari R/o Village Piran Wali. P.O. Nyoli Kalan, Distt. Hissar-125001. Arising out of Reference No.L-42012/265/90-IR (DU) dated 30.12.1996. 6. ID No. 59/1997, Registered on 02.01.1997, Prem Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh C/o The President Distt. Agriculture Workers Union, Gali No.5, H.No.123, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar (Haryana)-125 001. Arising out of Reference No.L-42012/289/90-IR (DU) dated 30.12.1996. 7. ID No. 67/1997, Registered on 02.01.1997, Lal Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh C/o The President Distt. Agriculture Workers Union, Gali No.5, H.No.123, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar (Haryana)-125 001. Arising out of Reference No.L-42012/247/90-IR (DU) dated 30.12.1996. ...........Workmen Versus The Commandant (Brigadier) Equine Breeding Stud, Hisar. ........Management Sh. B.S. Beniwal AR for Workmen Sh. Paramjit Singh Rana AR for Management Judgment reserved on 30-04-2025 Judgment Pronounced on 15-05-2025 JUDGMENT/ AWARD 1. Above noted all industrial dispute cases had arisen and registered on the basis of similar nature of References being as received from the Government of India, Labour Ministry. In all these cases the opposite party is same, cause of action also same and same set of facts have been pleaded in respective claim statements of the workmen, therefore these all seven cases are being decided by a common judgment. 2. It is also important to be noted that all these cases which were registered on 1st or 2nd, January in the year 1997 on the basis of separate references of similar nature but of same date i.e. 30.12.1996 raising same issue regarding termination of services of above noted workmen by the management of management of Equine Breeding Stud, Hisar and once on the basis of settlement between the parties final award was duly passed on 14-11-2008, disposing all these cases. The award dated 14.11.2008 passed in these cases was also duly notified by the Labour Ministry-Government of India under Section 17 of the ID Act on 05-12- 2008. It appears that some advertisement by the opposite party was published on 01.07.2013 for recruitment against the posts being Beldars, Chowkidars PTC and these workmen had challenged said advertisement by filing Civil writ Petitions- CPW No.14395 of 2013 Baldev Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. and CWP No.15736 of 2013 Lal Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. These writ petitions alongwith other CWP No.14472 of 2013 Smt. Bala Devi Versus Union of India & Ors., CWP No.3051 of 2012 Baldev Singh Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors and CWP No.4825 of 2012 Ram Niwas & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. were decided by a common order dated 24.03.2017 passed by Hon‘ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereby and where under Hon‘ble High Court was pleased to relegate petitioners therein (workmen) to seek remedy of reference of dispute through appropriate Government. It was also directed by Hon‘ble High Court that in case no reference order was passed within time limit directed, the workmen (petitioners) were given liberty to directly approach the Tribunal by4102 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] presenting their statements of claims. Therefore, in above factual scenario the second round of litigation started when above noted workmen filed applications for revival of earlier Industrial Disputes cases of 1997 as Labour Ministry did not send fresh reference as per Order of Hon‘ble High Court referred hereinabove. Vide order dated 16.08.2018 the then Presiding Officer (Link Officer) of CGIT-I, Chandigarh allowed the applications and granted liberty to workmen for filing fresh claim statements by each individual workman in terms of provision of Section 2-A of the I.D. Act. Hence, fresh claim statements were filed on behalf of each individual workman in above noted all the cases. 3. The case of Workman/ Petitioner- From the perusal of individual claim statements in these cases it appears that workmen Santosh Singh, Rajinder Singh, Krishan Kumar, Prem Singh, Lal Singh were appointed as Beldars, whereas Baldev Singh was appointed on the post of Sahish and Fateh Singh was appointed on the post of Tractor Driver on different dates prior to year 1990, the services of workmen with the respondent/ management were on daily wages basis but they worked without any break for several years and conduct of claimant workmen were also very good. It appears that in March, 1990 (in case of Fateh Singh May, 1989) the services of claimant-workmen were terminated without following the procedure under the Industrial Dispute Act, as such to protect the rights of the workmen, they raised Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A of the ID Act. It is further stated that earlier the Industrial Dispute cases which were marked as ID No. 01/1997, ID No. 07/1997, ID No. 31/1997, ID No. 37/1997, ID No. 51/1997, ID No. 59/1997, ID No. 67/1997 were contested between the workmen and management and on 14.11.2008 a settlement was arrived and award dated 14.11.2008 was passed in the Lok Adalat. The operative part of the award is reproduced hereunder: ―4. As per office memorandum dated 05.09.2008, this case was fixed in Pre Lok Adalat meeting on 14.11.2008 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciliation mechanism. As per office memorandum dated 05.09.2008, this case was fixed in Pre Lok Adalat meeting on 14.11.2008 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciliation mechanism. As per office memorandum dated 05.09.2008, this case was fixed in Pre Lok Adalat meeting on 14.11.2008 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciliation mechanism, it is agreed between the parties that the workmen will be provided with job as and when required pass, it any workmen is covered under the scheme to regulation, he will be provided the benefit accordingly. The Workmen will be paid wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workman. On this assurance, the workmen withdrew the reference in Lok Adalat. Accordingly the reference is returned to the Central Govt. as settled in Lok Adalat. Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record. Chandigarh 14.11.2008 G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer, 4. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived between workmen and management, the workmen were kept in services alongwith incumbents. It is said that no qualification was required for appointment of a Class-IV employee and they were designated civilian in the lower formation in the army but further at the time of 6th Pay Commission the respondent-management issued a communication dated 21.09.2010 for recruitment on all the post and qualification for Class-IV employees have been raised to Matriculation/ITI. It is further said that the workmen requested for regularization of their services pursuant to the settlement dated 14.11.2008 and on other subsequent dates on the strength of their long and uninterrupted services and when the claim of the workmen was not settled the workmen filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing No.22851 of 2010 titled as Baldev Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India before Punjab & Haryana High Court and the same was disposed of on 05.01.2011 with the directions to the respondent to take decision on the representation of the claimant alongwith other co-workers and due to non-compliance of the orders given by the Hon‘ble Punjab & Haryana High Court a COCP No.1279 of 2011 was also filed but the respondent-management instead of considering the directions of the Hon‘ble High Court, issued advertisement for various posts without considering the claim of the workmen and seeing the non-compliance of the directions of Hon‘ble High Court by the respondent management, the workmen filed another Civil Writ Petition bearing CWP No.3051 of 2012 before the Hon‘ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and on 17.02.2012 status quo with regard to appointment of the workmen alongwith other workers was granted but the respondent again issued advertisement for filling 106 posts of Beldars, Chowkidars, Dhobis and Shais vide advertisement dated 01.07.2013 and the same was challenged by the workmen by filing Civil Writ Petition bearing CWP No.14395 of 2013 and after completion of the pleadings the CWP No.14395 of 2013 came up for hearing on 24.03.2017 for final adjudication alongwith other Writ Petitions and the Hon‘ble High Court has been pleased to disposed of all Writ Petitions relegating the petitioner to seek remedy of reference of the dispute from appropriate Government to the CGIT-cum- Labour Court exercising jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is further said that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon‘ble High Court the workmen had filed an application for revival of the settlement of their claim and the application was entertained by the Tribunal as no reference was sent by the appropriate Government and considering the exigency of the matter and hardship faced by the workmen an order dated 16.08.2018 was passed to grant liberty[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4103 to workmen to file claim statements before the Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Act. It is prayed that the workmen be granted the relief and direct the respondent to regularize the services of the workmen and give all service benefits which is given to regular employees from the date of regularization including promotional benefits and monetary benefits with interest. It has also been prayed in all these claim statements that earlier award dated 14.11.2008 be made applicable in strict sense as respondent management cannot back out from the settlement. It has been further prayed that claimant workmen may not be retrenched/ not be terminated during the period of service till their retirement. 5. The case of Management- It is denied that the respondent management is a Big Farm consisting 2600 Acres of the Breeding of Horses. It is said that the total land is 1826 acres and out of which approximately 1200 acres is being utilized for farming purposes to grow fodder and forage for horses of Indian Army and these horses are managed for breeding to meet the requirement of horses and mules in Indian Army and the work is being carried out purely of agricultural nature, animal husbandry and veterinary treatment of these horses in the Hospital. The further case of opposite party has been that the administration employees Military personnel in addition to other category of employees for the purpose of this Stud. The opposite party however, has admitted that the claimant‘s workmen may have worked in daily worker paid laborers category as higher on required basis at nerric rates. According to opposite party/ management the provisions of Industrial Act, 1947 is not applicable for daily paid laborers working for agriculture and farming for growing of fodder and horses. It has been denied that these workmen were employed on the post of Beldars, Tractor Driver, Shahis or any other Class IV Employees. There has been no proof of their appointment. According to opposite party the workmen were used as daily paid laborers for growing fodder for horses in the agricultural farm as and when required basis. It is also denied by opposite party that there is no provisions of regularization of services of daily paid laborers without going through competition whenever the post are advertised. So far as the contention of workmen regarding award dated 14.11.2008 has passed earlier by this Tribunal is concerned opposite party has not denied this fact and it is stated that the award is being followed in letter and spirit. It is stated by opposite party that no assurance was ever given to these workmen to be kept in service. It is further stated by opposite party that qualification for the post has been fixed by Government of India as per requirement of each post. It is further pleaded by opposite party that the statement of long uninterrupted service by the claimant workman cannot be accepted without any dates of their services mentioned in the claim statement. It is however, accepted and admitted by opposite party that for the post of various trades an advertisement in the year 2008 and 2015 was given and post has been filled up based on competitive merit. According to opposite party the Hon‘ble High Court had ruled in Writ Petition COCP No.14395/2013 that Central Government may continue to utilize their services in some arrangement if exigencies of administration required then, however, no order on merit of Industrial Dispute was passed. It is specifically stated in the reply that these claimant workman are being utilized for farming purposes as and when required basis and being paid daily wages accordingly. According to opposite party no violation of any rule have been committed by the opposite party and the prayers made by workman claimants cannot be granted as daily wager cannot be regularized without proper fair competition of the post advertised from time to time. According to opposite party the claim of these claimants are liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties and on the basis of reference of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India following issue arises for adjudication in the present Industrial Dispute- ―Whether the award dated 14.11.2008 based on settlement and conciliation between the parties is been implemented by the opposite party? 7. During hearing of these cases the all these individual workmen have got themselves examined as Witnesses in their respective case record and they had reiterated the factual aspects of their claim statements in their respective evidence before the Tribunal. Similarly on behalf of Respondent- Management one witness namely Major Jaspal Singh, ADJ. & QTR. Master, Equine Breeding Stud, Hisar, got examined as Management Witness No.1 in all these cases. 8. Arguments of Parties: It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-workmen in all these cases that the status of daily wages workers has not been denied by the opposite party and it is also not denied that when in 1997 above noted cases started on the basis of individual references received from the Labour Ministry a settlement was arrived between the parties on 14.11.2008 and as per said settlement the claimants workmen were to be taken back in the service but instead of taking them back in service advertisement was made by the opposite party by raising the minimum qualification for the post and ultimately these claimants workmen filed different Writ Petitions before Hon‘ble High Court challenging the said advertisement and raising the minimum qualification. According to Ld. Counsel the award dated 14.11.2008 was to be given effect but it has been thrown although as per provisions contained in Industrial Dispute Act opposite party cannot go back from the settlement arrived in the Court. The Ld. Counsel for these workmen has argued that an award should be passed in the light of earlier award dated 14.11.2008 and these claimants-workmen should be taken to their respective services. 9. Refuting and opposing the above said contentions raised on behalf of Claimants-workmen, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has argued that Hon‘ble High Court has not expressed any opinion on merit and as per award dated 14.11.2008 these claimants workmen were taken back into the service on the daily wages as and when required basis. It has been argued that a claim of their regularization cannot be considered as they were only daily wages employee as4104 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and when required basis and as per advertisement the various posts of Class IV employees have already been filled up. It is also argued that public employment cannot be given without a fair process of selection and in the facts and circumstances the claim statement of workmen are liable to be dismissed. FINDINGS 10. It is admitted fact between the parties that in the first round of litigation which started on the basis of separate references as received from Ministry and in the said proceedings vide order dated 14.11.2008 a settlement was arrived between the parties. As per the said settlement which had arrived between the parties, it was agreed that workmen will be provided with job as and when required basis and if any workmen is covered under the scheme of regularization he will be provided the benefit accordingly. The workmen will be paid wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workmen. This kind of award based on settlement itself was only indicative of the fact that when there could be any requirement by the opposite party the services of these workmen could be taken on the daily wages basis and if there is any scheme for regularization they will be also given benefit accordingly. On the record the workmen have failed to prove that there has been any scheme of regularization by the Government and that they fulfill the required condition for that regularization. It appears that even initial appointment of these claimants- workmen has been on only oral basis without any written appointment and similarly the termination of these workmen is also without any written order. On the record there is no proof of any payment of wages so as to prove their cases that when they were working on daily wages or they were on Muster Roll of the department and infact they were paid wages. So far as raising of minimum qualification to the Class IV post by the Government is concerned although they has been challenged to said raising up qualification before the Hon‘ble High Court but the order of raising qualification has not been set aside by the Hon‘ble High Court. According to case of opposite party there has been no scheme under which these daily wages employee can be regularized and so far as raising of advertisement for the selection of various post is concerned that has already been concluded. It is not disputed that the opposite party is a Central Government Department and any employment to any post would always be considered as public employment. A public employment cannot be made without proper advertisement and fair opportunities to all deserving and eligible candidates. On the record there is nothing to show as to whether when advertisement for the various post was there by the department whether these claimants-workmen had applied against those post or not. It appears that because of raising the minimum qualification these workmen could not be able to apply and now they are claiming regular appointment against those public employment in the Government Department by filing these Industrial Dispute Cases. In my considered view although there has been an award to take them back on the job as and when required basis but this nature of award has no binding effect upon the opposite party that it is bound to take them back. The term ―as and when required basis‖ used in the previous award dated 14.11.2008 gives sufficient space to the opposite party to deny re-employment to these claimants-workmen. In my considered view claimants-workmen have failed to make out a case for their re-instatement or regularization in the opposite party department and therefore, their claims and reliefs prayed cannot be accepted. 11. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, all the above noted ID cases are dismissed without passing any award in favor of claimants-workmen. 12. It is therefore- ORDERED That all the above noted ID Cases ID No. 01/1997 Santokh Singh, ID No. 07/1997 Baldev Singh, ID No. 31/1997 Fateh Singh, ID No. 37/1997 Rajinder Singh, ID No. 51/1997 Krishan Kumar, ID No. 59/1997 Prem Singh, ID No. 67/1997 Lal Singh are being dismissed without passing any award in favor of respective claimants-workmen. 13. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication. Dated: 15.05.2025 B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer नई ददल्ली, 6 जून, 2025 का.आ. 987.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों जनदेिक, राष्ट्रीय सांस्ट्कृजतक संृदा संरक्षण अनुसंधान प्रयोगिाला, लखनऊ; स्ट्वामी, मेससध वी.के.ससह कंस्ट्रक्िन कंृनी, ृंजाब; जनदेिक, मेससध जवजजलेंट कॉरृोरेट सर्ववसेज, गुड़गांव (हररयाणा) और श्री ृंकज ससह के बीच अनुबंध म ें जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह-श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ ृंचाट(संदभध सं्‍या 20/2021) को जजसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें ददखाया गया ह,ज प्रकाजित करती ह ज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 05.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल-42025-07-2025-132-आईआर (डीय)ू ] ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4105 New Delhi, the 6th June, 2025 S.O. 987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director, National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property, Lucknow; The Proprietor, M/s V.K. Singh Construction Company, Punjab; The Director, M/s Vigilant Corporate Services, Gurgaon. (Haryana) and Shri Pankaj Singh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2025. [No. L-42025-07-2025-132-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. No. 20/2021 Ref. No. K-10/1-20/2020-IR dated: 02.02.2021 BETWEEN Shri Pankaj Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh, Village Pratappur, Mareli, Distt.Sitapur-261403. (pankajnrlc2020@gmail.com) AND 1. The Director, National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property, Sector E-3, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024. 2. The Proprietor, M/s V.K.Singh Construction Company, 20-M.S. Enclave Part 1, Khakoli Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Punjab-160104. (constructionvk@gmail.com) 3. The Director, M/s Vigilant Corporate Services, Jeetram Complex, M.G.Road, Sukhrali, Gurgaon. (Haryana) (info@vigilantcorporateservices.com). AWARD By order No. K-10/1-20/2020-IR dated: 02.02.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule: "Whether the action of management of M/s V.K.Singh Construction Company, a contractor of National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property, Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Pankaj Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh, Security Guard w.e.f. 01.07.2020 without following the provisions of Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947, is Legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 20/2021 has been registered. On 05.04.2021 claimant filed claim statement with following prayer: ―i. This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to pass an award against the respondent to reinstate the workman-applicant with full back wages with effect from the date of termination of his services i.e. 01-07- 2020 along-with the benefits of EPF/ESI and an interest @18% per annum from the date it was due till the date of its payment. ii. To award the cost incurred in litigation before Learned Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow as well as before this Hon'ble Tribunal in favour of applicant against the respondents. iii. To pass such other orders which are found just fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.‖ On 13.10.2022 behalf of the respondent statement of defence was filed.4106 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder affidavit on 28.11.2022 and evidence in support of his cased vide affidavit dated 13.01.2023. After filing of the evidence on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to workman, he did not turn up for her cross-examination. In spite of notice to the workman that matter shall proceed ex-parte, none appeared on behalf of workman. Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent, Sri Banwari Lal and gone through the records. It is clearly established that claimant/workman has filed evidence on affidavit in support of his case; but in spite of several opportunities did not turn up for her cross-examination by the respondent on evidence filed by him on affidavit in support of his case. Thus, it is a case of no evidence from the side of workman/claimant in support of his case, once he has not been cross- examined by the respondent. Keeping, in view of the above said facts as well as the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under: ―It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.‖ In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under: ―The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.‖ And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as under: ―The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.‖ As the workman did not turn up for cross-examination, after submitting his evidence in support of his case, filed on affidavit (examination-in-chief), so it is a case of no evidence filed on behalf of workman in support of case set up by him, liable to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief. Award as above. Lucknow. 23rd April, 2025 Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4107 नइ ददल्ली, 6 जून, 2025 का.अ. 988.—औद्योगगक गििाद ऄगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण म,ेंकेन्द्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों मख्ु य प्रबधं क (एच अर), हिंदस्ु तान एयरोनॉटिक्स गलगमिेड कोरबा जोन, कोरबा (छत्तीसगढ़) और ऄध्यक्ष, एच.ए.एल. सफाइ कमचम ारी सघं , ईत्तर प्रदशे के बीच ऄनुबंध म ें गनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक ऄगधकरण- सिं-श्रम न्द्यायालय, लखनउ पंचाि(संदभम संख्या 51/2014) को जैसा दक ऄनुलग्नक म ें ददखाया गया िं,ै प्रकागशत करती िं ैजो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉपी के साथ 05.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. एल-14011/08/2014-अइअर (डीय)ू ] ददलीप कुमार, ऄिर सगचि New Delhi, the 6th June, 2025 S.O. 988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief Manager (HR), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Korba Zone, Korba (Chattisgarh) and The President, H.A.L Safai Karmachari Sangh, Uttar Pradesh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2025. [No. L-14011/08/2014-IR(DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. No. 51 of 2014 Ref. No. L-14011/08/2014-IR(DU) dated: 28.04.2014 BETWEEN The President, H.A.L Safai Karmachari Sangh, Korba Zone Amethi, C.S.M Nagar, Uttar Pradesh AND The Chief Manager (HR), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Korba Zone, Korba (Chattisgarh) AWARD By order No. L-14011/08/2014-IR(DU) dated: 28.04.2014 the present industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule: “क्या प्रबंधन, एच०ए०एल० कोरिा मंडल, ऄमेठी द्वारा संगिदा सफाइ कममचाटरयों को िर्म 2012-13 में बोनस का भुगतान न दकया जाना ईगचत एि ंबैधागनक िंै? यदद निंीं तो श्रगमकगण क्या गिंत लाभ पान ेके ऄगधकारी िं?ै" Thereafter the claimant filed its statement of claim on 10.10.2014. And the respondent filed their reply/objection on 30.03.2016 to which rejoinder has been filed on 17.10.20216.4108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In spite of notice none appeared on behalf of workman. After hearing Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned counsel for respondent, the core question to be considered that whether on the basis of reference dated 20.08.2014 present claim petition, filed by claimant, is maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? In order to decide said controversy, it will be appropriate to state section 20(1) and section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965: 20. Application of Act to establishments in public sector in certain cases.[(1)] If in any accounting year an establishment in public sector sells any goods produced or manufactured by it or renders any services, in competition with an establishment in private sector, and the income from such sale or services or both is not less than twenty per cent. of the gross income of the establishment in public sector for that year, then, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such establishment in public sector as they apply in relation to a like establishment in private sector. 22. Reference of disputes under the Act. Where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act or with respect to the application of this Act to an establishment in public sector, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State and the provisions of that Act or, as the case may be, such law, shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply accordingly.” Taking into consideration the above said section 20(1) of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, if an employee/association of employees has any grievance in respect to payment of bonus for a particular year from its employer then for the said purpose the appropriate remedy is itself provided u/s 22 of said Act. Thus, the legislature itself has provided remedy for non-payment of bonus by employer to its employee for the said purpose he has got remedy u/s 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 by way of reference so, present reference, in respect to payment of bonus for year 2012-2013 to the contractor's Safai workers under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not maintainable. Order For the foregoing reasons the reference under adjudication is dismissed as not maintainable. Lucknow. Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer 06th March, 2025 नइ ददल्ली, 6 जून, 2025 का.अ. 989.— औद्योगगक गििाद ऄगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण म,ेंकेन्द्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों मिंाप्रबधं क, हिंदस्ु तान एयरोनॉटिक्स गलगमिेड, लखनउ और श्रीमती सीमा हसिं के बीच ऄनुबंध म ें गनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक ऄगधकरण- सिं-श्रम न्द्यायालय, लखनउ पंचाि(संदभम संख्या 50/2014) को जैसा दक ऄनुलग्नक म ें ददखाया गया िं,ैप्रकागशत करती िं ै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉपी के साथ 05.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. एल- 42012/83/2014-अइअर (डीय)ू ] ददलीप कुमार, ऄिर सगचि[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4109 New Delhi, the 6th June, 2025 S.O. 989.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow and Smt Sima Singh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2025. [No. L-42012/83/2014-IR(DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. No. 50/2014 Ref. No. L-42012/83/2014-IR(DU) dated: 01.08.2014 BETWEEN *Smt Sima Singh D/o Late Sh Ram Singh Rathora, C/o Sh Hari Singh Rajput, C-09 Khapramohali, Chhabani, M.A Jaipuria Marg, Kanpur(U.P.) AND The General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Accessories Division, Lucknow AWARD By order No. L-42012/83/2014-IR(DU) dated: 01.08.2014 the present industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule: "क्या प्रबंधन, गिंन्द्दस्ुतान एरोनॉटिकस गलगमिेड, लखनउ द्वारा स्ि० राम हसिं, राठौर भूतपूिम ऄगभयंता की पुत्री सीमा हसिं को करूणामूलक अधार पर नौकरी न ददया जाना न्द्यायेगचत एि ंिैध िं?ै यदद निंीं तो िाददनी दकस रािंत पाने की ऄगधकारी िंै?" Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 50/2014 has been registered. On 24.05.2012 claimant filed claim statement with following prayer: “1 यिं दक प्रिन्द्धन, गिंन्द्दस्ुतान एरोनाटिक्स गलगमिेड, लखनउ द्वारा स्ि० श्री रामहसिं राठौर, भूतपूिम ऄगभयन्द्ता की सेिाकाल म ेंहुइ मृत्यु के फलस्िरूप प्रार्थथनी को करुणामूलक अधार पर नौकरी प्रदान न दकया जाना ऄनुगचत और ऄिैधागनक घोगर्त करते हुए प्रार्थथनी को ददनांक 24-1-2001 से गनरन्द्तरता बनाय ेरखते हुए करूणामूलक अधार पर कायम पर रखिाया जाय। 2 यिं दक िाद का ईगचत पटरव्यय और ऄन्द्य गिंतलाभ जो माननीय पीठासीन ऄगधकारी ईगचत समझें, ददलाया जाय।”4110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] On 20.12.2014 behalf of the respondent preliminary objections were filed, to which workman filed its reply on 26.08.2015. Thereafter, on 12.09.2018 respondent filed its statement of defence. Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder on 05.12.2018 and evidence in support of his cased vide affidavit dated 16.06.2023. After filing of the evidence on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to workman, she did not turn up for her cross-examination. Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the records. From the perusal of record, it is clearly established that claimant/workman has filed evidence on affidavit in support of her case; but in spite of several opportunities, her cross-examination by the respondent on evidence filed by her on affidavit in support of her case, cannot be recorded; and it is a case of no evidence from the side of workman/claimant in support of his case. Thus, in view of the above said facts and the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under: “It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.” In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under: “The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.” And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as under:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4111 “The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.” As the workman did not turn up for cross-examination, after submitting her evidence in support of her case, filed on affidavit (examination-in-chief), so it is a case of no evidence filed on behalf of workman in support of case set up by her, liable to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief. Award as above. Lucknow. Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer 17th April, 2025 नइ ददल्ली, 6 जून, 2025 का.अ. 990.— औद्योगगक गििाद ऄगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण म,ेंकेन्द्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों प्रबधं गनदेशक एि ं सीइओ, नोदकया सॉल्यशू सं एंड निे िक्स म आंगडया प्राआििे गलगमिेड, मुंबइ; प्रबधं गनदेशक एि ं सीइओ, िोडाफोन अआगडया गलगमिेड, गरुु ग्राम और श्री सगचन श्रीिास्ति के बीच ऄनुबंध म ें गनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक ऄगधकरण- सिं-श्रम न्द्यायालय, लखनउ पंचाि(संदभम संख्या 06/2021) को जैसा दक ऄनलु ग्नक में ददखाया गया िं,ैप्रकागशत करती िं ैजो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉपी के साथ 05.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. एल-42025-07-2025-131-अइअर (डीय)ू ] ददलीप कुमार, ऄिर सगचि New Delhi, the 6th June, 2025 S.O. 990.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Managing Director & CEO, Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited, Mumbal; The Managing Director & CEO, Vodafone Idea Limited, Gurugram and Shri Sachin Srivastava, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2025. [No. L-42025-07-2025-131-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. No. 06/2021 No. K-10/1-8/2020-IR dated 18.01.2021 BETWEEN4112 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Shri Sachin Srivastava, Lucknow. (U.P.). (sachinsrilok@gmail.com) AND 1. The Managing Director & CEO, Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited. Birls Centurian, 10" Floor, Plot No. 794,8 Wing, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbal. 400030. 2. The Managing Director & CEO, Vodafone Idea Limited. DLF Cyber Greens, Tower A, 6 Floor, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase II, Sector-24, Gurugram-122002. AWARD By order No. K-10/1-8/2020-IR dated 18.01.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule: “Whether Shri Sachin Srivastava, FLM Specialist can be treated as workman ? If so, whether the alleged termination of his services by the management of Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd./ Vodafone Idea Limited is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date? Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 06/2021, registered on 06.06.2007 before this Tribunal. On 03.08.2021, on behalf of claimant, statement of claim was filed, with following prayer: “Wherefore in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that termination Applicant/Workman of service taking by of the forcible resignation on 14.01.2020 by officials of opposite party No. 2 is wholly illegal and unjustified and is liable to be set aside with the direction to employee to reinstate Applicant/Workman with full back wages and with all consequential benefits under the law.” 29.06.2023, behalf of the respondent no. 2 and on 06.01.2023 on behalf of respondent no. 1, written statements have been filed; wherein preliminary objections have been taken. On 07.10.2023, the claimant filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by OP no. 2. On 14.02.2025, an application on affidavit has been moved on behalf of applicant, the same is quoted hereunder: “1- That the deponent is Applicant / Workman in the present Industrial Dispute hence well conversant with the facts deposed below 2- That the deponent has decided not to pursue the present Reference/adjudication before Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal out of his free will 3- That in view of the above Applicant/Workman requests the Hon'ble Tribunal to permit him for doing so” Authorized representative of the workman on the basis of said application submits that he does not want to press the present industrial dispute and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4113 Learned cousenl for respondents have no objection to above said prayer. Accordingly, in view of the above said facts, the claim of workman is dismissed as not pressed; and workman/Sachin Srivastava is not entitled for any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly. Award as above. Lucknow. Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer 09th April, 2025. नइ ददल्ली, 6 जून, 2025 का.अ. 991.—औद्योगगक गििाद ऄगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कायकम ारी गनदेशक, ओगडशा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और ऄध्यक्ष, हिंदस्ु तान एयरोनॉटिक्स कमचम ारी सघं , ओगडशा के बीच ऄनुबंध म ें गनर्ददष्ट औद्योगगक गििाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक ऄगधकरण ] भुिनश्वे र पचं ाि (सदं भ म सख्ं या 32/2022) को जसै ा दक ऄनलु ग्नक म ें ददखाया गया िं,ै प्रकागशत करती िं ै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉपी के साथ 05.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. एल-42011/257/2022- अइअर-(डीय)ू ] ददलीप कुमार, ऄिर सगचि New Delhi, the 6th June, 2025 S.O. 991.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour–Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Executive Director, Odisha and The President, Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association, Odisha worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2025. [No. L-42011/257/2022-IR(DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR Present: Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 32/2022 Date of Passing Order – 10th March, 2025 Between :- The Executive Director, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., At./Po. Sunabeda, Dist. Koraput, Odisha – 764 020. … 1st Party-Management. (And) The President, Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association, HAL Township, At./Po. Sunabeda, Dist. Koraput,4114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Odisha – 764 020. … 2nd Party-Union. Appearances: Sri A.K. Patra … For the Management. Auth. Representative. Sri D.K. Patra, President … For the 2nd party- Of the Employees Association Union. ORDER In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-42011/257/2022 (IR(DU), dated 21.07.2022 and subsequent corrigendum of even number dated 10.11.2022 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 action of the management of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Koraput Division, Odisha in modifying the medical policy as raised by Hindustan Aeronautics Employees’ Association vide letter dated 22.11.2021 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief (s) the disputant workers is entitled to and what direction(s), if any, is necessary in the matter?‖ 2. The case of the 2nd party-workman in brief is as follows:- That the Company Medical Assistance Scheme was introduced in HAL as a welfare amenity and exists since several decades and the same has been extended to all the family members. But all of a sudden the Management of HAL curtailed the medical facilities to the dependant parents to which the Union have strongly opposed and urged to continue the existing facilities to the dependant parents. Inspite of the strong reservations of the Union the Management of HAL, Koraput Division resorted to bring amendments/changes through issuing notice of change of service conditions under section 9(A) of the I.D. Act. The Union had requested the Management on several times not to curtail the medical facilities extended to the dependant parent, but the Management did not consider their grievance. Finding no other alternative the 2nd party-Union raised a dispute before the labour machinery and on failure of conciliation proceeding the present reference has been made. The 2nd party-Union has prayed to pass an award in their favour. 3. On the other hand, both the Management through appeared but not yet filed any written statement in this case in spite of several opportunities given to them. 4. However, during the course of adjudication, both the 2nd Party-Union and the 1st Party-Management have settled the present dispute out of court and filed original copy of their Memorandum of Settlement in Form – H containing certain terms & conditions as agreed between them in this dispute with signatures of President and Office Secretary of the Employees Association, HAL, Sunabeda and signatures of Chief Manager (HR)-IR & CSR and Sr. Manager-HR(IR) authorized representatives of the 1st Party-Management. Submitting their Memorandum of Settlement, both parties have prayed the Tribunal to close this case in terms of the settlement arrived at between them. The terms of Memorandum of Settlement executed between Sri Dhirendra Kumar Patra, President of Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association, Sunabeda and Ramakanta Dash, Chief Manager (HR)-IR & CSR, HAL Koraput Division (Authorised representative of the 1st Party Management are as under:- Whereas the Competent Authority/Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Koraput Division, Sunabeda, Odisha, had issued Notice dated 27.10.2021 under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding change in service condition of employees of the Division pertaining to medical facilities extended by the Company to its employees.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4115 Consequent there to, vide Communication No. HAL/HR/23(3)/2023/PF/2, dated 06.09.2023, HAL, Corporate Office communicated regarding its decision to bring certain changes in its earlier instructions so s to extend better benefits to its employees and their dependents. In the matter, earlier, members of Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association (HAEA) were aggrieved with the decision of Management. However for betterment of the employees of the Division and to protect their larger interest, the issue is discussed between Competent Authorities of HAL, Koraput Division and representative of HAEA, Sunabeda and decided that HAEA, extends its consent in implementation of terms of aforesaid circular/communication dated 06.09.2023 of HAL, Corporate Office, in the Division. Further, they have no disputes with the Management of HAL, Koraput Division, pertaining to Notices dated 27.10.2021 & 06.09.2023 issued earlier by the Management and implementation of the subject matter of such notices/circulars in the Division. As such it is agreed upon by the representatives of HAEA, Sunabeda, to settle all pending disputes pertaining to the issue accordingly and not to proceed or to pursue the disputes further pending before any Court/Forum/Tribunal or Authority, particularly ID Case No. 32/2022 at present pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. It is agreed further that the parties submit this Memorandum of settlement before this Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for passing appropriate award in the present dispute. 5. Considering the facts and circumstance and the submissions of the stake holders of this case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that whatever dispute was existing between the 2nd Party-Union and the 1st Party-Management, the same have already been settled and no further adjudication is required under the Act. 6. Hence, this order is passed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the 2nd Party- Union and the 1st Party-Management. The Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties in this case forms part of the order. 7. This is the Order of this Tribunal. 8. Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication. Dictated &Corrected by me. DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 992.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds dedZ kjk s ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a83/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y – 12012/128/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 992.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.83/2002) 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-12012/128/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director4116 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 21st day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 83/2002 [Old ID No.105/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri R. Benarji Babu, S/o R. Venkata Krishnaiah, R/o 25/3939, Vengal Rao Nagar, B-Block, A.K. Nagar Post, Nellore – 524 001. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region – II, Tirupathi – 517501. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/128/2000-IR(B.I) dated 31.8.2000 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.144/2000, 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, in terminating the services of Sri R. Benarji Babu, Ex.Temporary Messenger, SBI with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖ After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 83/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4117 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- “ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out 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 the4118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 1989 to 1997, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975. 5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4119 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 314120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4121 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 practices4122 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4123 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 of4124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4125 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 and4126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 W7. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:- is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with the Respondent branch as water boy for total 58 days this certificate was issued on 19.5.1989. Ex.W1 is the notification of the bank. Further, Ex.W2 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W3 is the list of empanelment. Ex.W4 is service certificate issued by the Branch Manager, according to this certificate Workman has worked for a total of 169 days. Further, Ex.W5 to Ex.W7 are service certificates showing that workman has worked for 325 days after interview. 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4127 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, Main branch, Nellore in terminating the services of Workman Sri R. Benarji Babu, 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 the4128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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:-[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4129 ―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 the4130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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—[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4131 (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed4132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 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 on the basis of evidence 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 regular process of selection required for appointment in the bank. Further, witness states“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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4133 document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis. 30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect. 31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997. 32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order. 33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. Thus, these circulars do not reflect that the Workman has been terminated from service by this order.4134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 34. Similarly, office order dated 31.3.1997 is simply a direction to all branches of the Respondent bank by DGM that no further daily labour should be engaged or employed. Therefore, the plea of the Workman that he has been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 from the service by the Respondent is not acceptable. The evidence adduced by the Workman clearly goes to reveal that he had worked as a daily wager for which he has been paid wages according to number of working days. As there was an order for prohibition for engaging temporary workmen, in the bank, therefore, Workman could not be engaged by the Respondent for work from 1.4.1997 and there after. It is settled law that the daily wagers are engaged by the employer depending upon the availability of work and as the work was not available the Workman was not engaged further by the Respondent management. Therefore, the Workman on the ground of number of days he had worked in the Respondent bank cannot claim any right to reinstate him into the employment. As the Workman failed to prove the mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service as required under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the disengagement of Workman from work can not be termed in contravention of provision contained under Sec.25F and 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, this point is answered against the Workman and in favour of Respondent. 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4135 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 instant4136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4137 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 in response to an advertisement issued by the bank in terms of the settlement. Further, witness states, 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. He is not aware of the settlements. Further witness states ―No person who had worked for less number of days than me was given appointment 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 is4138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 31.3.19967 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4139 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.4140 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4141 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 on4142 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri R. Benarji Babu, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 21st day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri R. Benarji Babu MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement 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.W5: Photocopy of service certificate[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4143 Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W7: Photocopy of service certificate Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.M1: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.17.11.87 Ex.M2: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88 Ex.M3: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.27.10.1988 Ex.M4: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.9.1.1991 Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995 Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.30.7.1996 Ex.M7: Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997 Ex.M8: Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel. Ex.M9: Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98 Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98 नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 993.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a84/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y – 12012/125/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 993.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.84/2002) 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-12012/125/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 21st day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 84/2002 [Old ID No.133/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri B.Nirmal Kumar, S/o B. Narasimham, D.No.9/122, Bandelavari Street, Kapatipalem,4144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Nellore – 524 001. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region-II, Tirupathi – 517 501. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/125/2000-IR(B.I) dated 20.7.2000 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.85/2000, 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, in terminating the services of Sri B.Nirmal Kumar, Ex.Temporary Messenger, Nellore w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?‖ After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 84/2002 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4145 arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- “ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited. 9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered; (1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!; (2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated: (3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, (4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.” Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1989 to 1996, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 8 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.4146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4147 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.4148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4149 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.4150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4151 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 was4152 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4153 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.4154 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 W6. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:- Ex.W1 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with the Respondent branch for total 169 days. Further, Ex.W2 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W3 is the panel list. Ex.W4 to Ex.W6 are service certificates. 21. On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri Sri K. Bala Kotaiah and this witness has exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:- Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non- Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4155 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, Nellore in terminating the services of Workman Sri B. Nirmal Kumar, 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.4156 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4157 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 just4158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4159 (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"4160 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] “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 calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 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 on the basis of evidence 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 regular process of selection for appointment in the bank. Further, witness adds, “I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire 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., 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4161 document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis. 30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective seniority the non-engagement of the Workman does not amount to termination. Further, Respondent contended that no law provide that even though there is no work temporary employee should be continued in the bank work as the very engagement of Workman was subject to availability of work. Therefore, the allegation that the bank has indulged in unfair labour practice is incorrect. 31. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and contentions made by the Respondent, I find the force in the argument advanced by the Respondent that in the instant matter, Workman was not terminated from service by order dated 31.3.1997 rather he was disengaged in view of the non-availability of the work in the branch. Further, there was direction issued by the Head Office of the Respondent authority not to engage any daily wager Workman/ temporary Worker w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Thus, such disengagement of Workman does not amount to termination. Moreover, the Workman failed to prove his claim that he was terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he failed to establish his plea by any oral or documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of termination i.e., 31.3.1997. 32. Further, perusal of the order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India has issued the letter to Zonal Office with direction to all its branches to this effect that they have been advised by the DGM, Zonal Office, Hyderabad that as both the panel of temporary employees of 1989 and daily wagers/casual labour of 1992 will lapse on 31.3.1997 it has been decided by central office not to make any temporary appointments in messengerial cadre from 1.4.1997, therefore it was directed to issue suitable instructions not to make temporary appointments from 1.4.1997. There is no mention in this order that the Workman herein has been terminated from service by this order. 33. Further, the circular dated 27.3.1997 was issued by DGM, SBI to all branches in commercial network in respect of the non-appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre and it has directed not to make any temporary employment in the subordinate cadre with effect from 1.4.97 and further, it has directed to ensure that no temporary/casual/daily basis appointment of the petty cash. Further, it is directed to all Branch Managers that any4162 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4163 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 by4164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4165 were to be considered against the vacancies arise from January 1995 to December 1996, whereby the said panel would lapse. It was agreed that the vacancies falls upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus, the claim of the Workman to the post of permanent non-messenger in the Respondent management was subject to the availability of the sanctioned post and vacancies arising upto 31.3.1997. The workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list. 39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:- “I applied in response to the notification issued by the bank as per the settlement. Further, witness states, I do no know that the persons whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment as per the seniority in number of days in terms of settlement. Further witness states, I am not having any papers to show that any employee who has worked for less number of days than me was given regular appointment 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 on4166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4167 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 31.3.19967 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 the4168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4169 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 in4170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri B.Nirmal Kumar, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 21st day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4171 Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri B.Nirmal Kumar MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate 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.W5: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W6: Photocopy of service certificate Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.M1: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.17.11.87 Ex.M2: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.16.7.88 Ex.M3: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.27.10.1988 Ex.M4: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.9.1.1991 Ex.M5: Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995 Ex.M6: Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation dt.30.7.1996 Ex.M7: Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997 Ex.M8: Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel. Ex.M9: Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non-messenger panel Ex.M10: Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel Ex.M11: Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98 Ex.M12: Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98 नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 994.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjk s ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a107/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–12012/227/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 994.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.107/2002) 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-12012/227/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director4172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 24th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 107/2002 [Old ID No.128/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri S. Mastan Vali, 12/137, Y. Garaladenna(M), Kallur, Dist. Anantapur – 515001. … Petitioner And The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi – 517501. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/227/2000-IR(B.I) dated 29.9.2000 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.144/2000, 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, Kallur branch is justified in terminating Sri S. Mastan Vali, Messenger, from the services of the? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖ After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 107/2002 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4173 High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- “ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited. 9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered; (1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the extent it sets aside the common award dated 17.05.2005 of the Industrial Tribuna!; (2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated: (3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, (4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.” Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1986 to 1997, and has rendered4174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] unblemished service spreading over a period of about 12 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975. 5. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee and the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank prescribed certain qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee. The Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel would be valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement specifically provided that henceforth. ―there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre‖, except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, ―from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank‖. The Workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per Clause 7 of the agreement, ie. Settlement No.1, the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the Workman submits that circular was issued on 26.4.91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17.11.87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16.7.88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, ―to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments. The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, ―will be given another chance to appear for interview‖. 6. Workman submits that there were total five settlements. The settlement dated 17.11.87 is the 1st settlement (Ex M1), settlement dated 16.7.88 is 2nd settlement (Ex M2), settlement dated 27.10.88 is the 3rd[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4175 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 ade 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 Manager4176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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 : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4177 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.4178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4179 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 was4180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4181 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.4182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Further, Ex.W2 is the panel list. 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4183 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, Kallur branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri S. Mastan Vali, 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.4184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4185 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 5th4186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Settlement dated 30.7.1996 is arbitrary, illegal is not untenable. The recognized union of Workmen has negotiated with the Respondent Bank Management representing large number of Workmen and the Workman as individual do not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4187 (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" “14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to4188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 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 on the basis of evidence 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 I did not undergo regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary attendar in the branch. I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire 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., 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4189 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 work4190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4191 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.4192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4193 39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:- “I applied in response to the notification issued by the bank as per the settlement. Further, witness states, I do not know some of the employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank. Further witness states, I am not having any papers to show that any employee who had worked less number of days were given regular appointment 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 at4194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 31.3.19967 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4195 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 period4196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4197 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 were4198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri S. Mastan Vali, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 24th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri S. Mastan Vali MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of interview call letter Ex.W2: Photocopy of panel list 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4199 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 नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 995.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a89/2002) idz kf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y – 12012/85/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 995.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.89/2002) 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-12012/85/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 23rd day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 89/2002 [Old ID No.71/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri M. Bala Murali Krishna, No.1 , 18/218, Nerugunte Street, Anantapur. Dist. Anantapur. … Petitioner And The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate4200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/85/2000-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.62/2000, 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, Anantapur Main branch in terminating the services of Sri M. Balamurali Krishna, Messenger, from the services of the Bank by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?‖ After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 89/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management. 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- “ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4201 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 20.3.2019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1990 to 1996, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 7 years. The Respondent has terminated services of Workman by oral orders with effect from 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent bank decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel ―found suitable for permanent appointment‖ by wait- listing them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises. 4. That on 17.11.1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India - settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975. B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975. C) (i) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1.7.1975.4202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4203 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 the4204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4205 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's4206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4207 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 the4208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4209 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 Judgements4210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 W6. 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 intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W3 is Panel list. Further, Ex.W4 is the service certificate. Ex.W5 is another service certificate. Ex.W6 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. 21. On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. Bala Kotaiah and this witness has exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:- Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non- Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4211 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, Anantapur Main branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri M. Bala Murali Krishna, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? III. Whether the Workman is entitled for absorption on permanent post in the Branch of Respondent management as per averments made by him in the claim statement? IV. To what relief if any the Workman is entitled for? Findings:- 25. Point No.I:- Undisputedly settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996, minutes of conciliation proceedings and memorandum of understanding dated 27.2.1997 were executed between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under section 2(p) and 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:- (p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer; Section 18(1) provides as follows:- 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. - [(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and Workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s.18 (1) I.D. Act, 1947, terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid settlements are binding on the parties to the agreement. The Learned Counsel for Workman has argued that the Workman after going through the selection procedure has successfully been listed in the panel for appointment on the permanent basis in the Respondent management and the empanelled list has to be valid till last person in the empanelled list is appointed on permanent basis. But the impugned order dated 25.3.97, 27.3.97 and 31.3.97, has been issued by Respondent management thereby the services of the Workman has been terminated and the said order is not in consonance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, Workman submits that the Respondent in the 5th settlement has mentioned the date i.e., 31.3.1997 for lapse of empanel list which is illegal and that is not binding upon the Workman. The condition of lapse of empanelment list on 31.3.97 incorporated in the aforesaid 5th settlement, is arbitrary and illegal. 26. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.1997 goes to reveal that the Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Zonal Office has issued the letter to all the branches with regard to the subject not to make any temporary appointments in the Branch in messengerial category from 1.4.1997. The extract of the said letter is given below:-4212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ―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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4213 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 do4214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] not come into picture. Workman in the instant case has work as temporary Workmen in the Respondent Branch and in response of Notification he had applied for inclusion of his name in the panel and he was selected for inclusion his name in the panel list to be utilized for absorption of such Workman to permanent post in order of their seniority in the list. The Settlement dated 30.7.1996 between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation under Sec.2(p) and Sec.18(1) of I.D. Act, 1947 has clearly provided as regard non-messengerial position and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman;[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4215 (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the Workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL 1981 SCC page 225 has laid down the principle that how to count 240 days of service within one year it is held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a Workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the Workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the Workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the Workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F" “14. We have already extracted section 25B since its amendment and the change in language is the legislative exposition of which note must be taken. In fact, we need not further dilate upon this aspect because in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., Chinnappa Reddy. J., after noticing the amendment and referring to the decision in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd case, held as under: "These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a Workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service4216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 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 on the basis of evidence 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 regular process of selection required for appointment in the bank.. I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in the bank”. Thus, it is clear from the testimony of WW1 that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination in the Respondent bank. Therefore, Workman failed to establish his plea by his oral and documentary evidence that he had worked for 240 days continuously in calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Thus, the claim of the Workman that he has been terminated by oral order without issuing notice or payment in lieu after termination, in contravention of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. However the documents filed by the Workman in support of his claim, number of days worked with the Respondent goes to reveal that the Workman had worked intermittently as daily wager depending upon availability of work in branch. Workman did not file any document of appointment letter or salary slips in support of his claim for appointment as a non-messenger in the Respondent branch on temporary basis. 30. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has submitted the allegation of Workman that he was terminated from services is not correct. As the vacancies were filled up on regular basis in order of their respective[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4217 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 has4218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4219 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 instant4220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4221 workmen given chance to the permanent post were seniors in number of working days in panel list and Workman herein was junior to those workmen. Therefore, Workman could not be given absorption to permanent post being junior to other workmen in the panel list. 39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:- “I applied in response to an advertisement issued by the bank and my name was included in the panel in the year 1992. The panels were prepared by the bank on the basis of the number of days of service of the temporary employees and they were given regular employment as per the settlements in order of their seniority in the panel. Further witness states, No person who had worked for less number of days than me was given regular appointment 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.4222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4223 43. Respondent has contended that all the vacancies exist and arise upto 31.3.19967 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.”4224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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.”[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4225 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.4226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri M. Bala Murali Krishna, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri M. Bala Murali Krishna MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4227 Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper 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 circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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 नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 996.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a88/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–12012/60/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 996.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.88/2002) 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-12012/60/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 22nd day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 88/2002 [Old ID No.62/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between:4228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sri M. Gangadhar, H.No.6-16-32/2, Ambedkar Colony, Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad 503002. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/60/2000-IR(B.I) dated 13.7.2000 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.62/2000, 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 M. Gangadhar, by way of oral orders with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖ After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 88/2002 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4229 Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- “ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out 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 20.3.2019. 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 Non-Messenger from 1987 to 1988, 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 1.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that the management of Respondent4230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4231 (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 also4232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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".[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4233 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 to4234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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, 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4235 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 was4236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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 : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4237 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 door4238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 W6. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:- Ex.W1 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent according to this document the Workman has worked with the Respondent branch for total 89 days. Further, Ex.W2 is the notification and Ex.W3 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W4 is Panel list. Further, Ex.W5 is a circular letter dated 14.7.1999 issued by the General Manager for compliance to issue to all Branch Managers of Hyderabad circular for compliance and sought the report/objections strictly. Ex.W6 is the notification issued by the Respondent management through Employment Exchange. 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4239 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, Shraddanand branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri M. Gangadhar, a Non-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.4240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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,[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4241 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.4242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4243 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:4244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] "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 calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 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 on the basis of evidence 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,[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4245 “I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo regular process of selection before my engagement as temporary messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I used to work depending upon the availability of work 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 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., 31.3.1997.4246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4247 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 subordinate4248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4249 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. Further, witness states, 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. He is not aware of the settlements. Further witness states, I am not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than me was given appointment 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 of4250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4251 (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 31.3.19967 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 expired4252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4253 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 filled4254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse. Thus in both the cases empanelled list were lapsed on 1.4.1997. Ex.M6 is the copy of the settlement dated 30.7.1996. Further, witness states that on 27.2.1997 a memorandum of understanding was reached between the SBI and SBI Staff Federation providing that both the panels above mentioned will lapse on 31.3.1997. Ex.M7 is the copy of the memorandum of understanding and Ex.M8 is the copy of the statements giving the particulars of 1989 non-messenger panel, Ex.M9 is the copy of the statement of 1989 non- messenger panel, Ex.M10 is the copy of statement of 1992 panel. Further, witness states that petitioner was included in the 1989 panel. As the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted and his turn did not come he could not be given permanent employment in the bank as per the agreements. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the settlements reached from time to time between SBI and SBI staff federation and as per seniority, number of days of temporary service put in by them in the bank in the given period. Further, MW1 states petitioner was not sponsored by any employment exchange he did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment as a regular non-messenger the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were terminated from service by the bank. Further, MW1 states that the vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panels and these panels were expired in terms of the settlements so reached and there were no vacancies to absorb such employees. Thus, witness MW1 has proved the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 and also contentions made in the counter. However, MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner Counsel. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to discredit the testimony of the witness MW1 as regards the date of lapse of both the panels on 31.3.1997 and reasons assigned for non-absorption of the Petitioner from the panel list to the permanent post. Moreover the witness MW1 was re-examined by the Respondent and the witness MW1 states that panels were expired in terms of the settlement send absorptions to the extent of the available vacancies were made. There was no termination of any temporary messenger as such but their services were not utilized after the cut off date as the available vacancies were already filled up and most of these Petitioners were not in the service of the bank as on the date of the expiry date of the panels. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid testimony of the MW1 in re-examination in the absence of cross examination remained uncontraverted, the claim of the Workman that he was entitled for absorption in permanent post in the branch of Respondent Management on the basis of panel list is found not established. This point is answered against the Workman. 48. Point No.IV:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos. I, II and III, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and claim statement of Workman sans merit and liable to be dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4255 ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri M. Gangadhar, Ex.Non-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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 22nd day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri M. Gangadhar MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of Service certificate Ex.W2: Photocopy of News paper notification Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter Ex.W4: Photocopy of panel list Ex.W5: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. Ex.W6: Photocopy of illegible copy of notification issued by Respondent 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 नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 997.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjk s ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a49/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–12012/253/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक4256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 997.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.49/2002) 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-12012/253/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 49/2002 [Old ID No.141/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri V. Ome Rao, S/o V. Venkat Rao, H.No.B-68, HAL Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad – 500 042. … Petitioner And The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (Personnel & HRD Department) Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500 095. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/253/2000-IR(B.I) dated 16.10.2000 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.141/2000, 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:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4257 SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri V. Ome Rao, Temporary/Non-Messenger, by way of oral orders with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?" After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No. 49/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management. 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- “ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing4258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1988 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4259 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 High4260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4261 "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.4262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4263 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 to4264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4265 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 the4266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 W57. Further, the Workman has filed photocopies of documents in support of his claim which are discussed as under:-[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4267 Ex.W1 is the notification. Further, Ex. W2 is the service certificate issued by the Respondent and Ex.W3 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex. W4 is absorption and empanelment list. Further, Ex. W5 to Ex.W55 are service certificates, according to these documents the Workman has worked with the Respondent branch for total 2002 days. Ex. W56 is Photocopy of notification through Employment Exchange for filling up vacancies. Ex.W57 is the Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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, HAL Campus branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri V, Onme 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?4268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4269 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 barred4270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4271 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; In order to prove the fact of 240 days of service within 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Workman and the Workman has to prove this factum by adducing his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim.4272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Further, how to calculate 240 days of service by the Workman in a calendar year. In this context the reference of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court is relevant and the same are discussed below:- In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: "It was the case of the Workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the Workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the Workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..‖ 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4273 the date of his termination. Further, in respect of calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 29. For the purpose of calculation of 240 days of continuous service of Workman, the provision contained under Section 25 F read with Section 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. As per settled law the initial burden of proof lies on the workman to prove the fact of 240 days of continuous service with Respondent. The workman has filed documents Ex.W51, Ex.W52 and Ex. W53 in support of his claim. The perusal of these documents goes to reveal that the Respondent management had issued a certificate dated 4.7.1996 which goes to show that the Workman Sri V. Ome Rao, had worked with the Respondent management from September, 1995 to May, 1996 for 199 days. Further, Ex.W52 is certificate dated 19.4.1997 issued by the Respondent management that goes to show that the Workman Sri V. Ome Rao had worked in the branch of Respondent management as a temporary messenger for the period of 147 days from July, 1996 to 17th January, 1997. Further, Ex. W53 goes to show that workman Sri V. Ome Rao had worked in the branch of Respondent management from 18.1.1997 to 31.3.1997 for 73 days i.e., till the date of his termination. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid Ex.W51, Ex. W52 and Ex.W53, documents it is clearly established that Workman had worked for continuously for 419 days, which is much beyond 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Therefore, as per provision contained u/s.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 he is entitled for one month notice in writing before his retrenchment or payment of wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice and also entitled for compensation. However, record goes to reveal that the Respondent has not given any notice to the Workman before his retrenchment with effect from 31.3.1997, nor Workman has been paid one month wages in lieu of notice and nor paid compensation as per provision contained under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. However, Respondent has not denied that the certificates Ex.W51, Ex.W52 and Ex.W53 are not issued by the Respondent and has not produced any evidence to contradict the statement of WWI that the workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in the calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination. 30. In support of his claim the Workman has examined himself as WWI and in his sworn testimony he has deposed that he had worked initially for 64 days at HAL campus branch of State Bank of India. Further WW1 states that he has worked for a total period of 2002 days with Respondent at various periods. Ex.W5 to Ex. W55 are the total service certificates. Further, WW1 states that bank has taken his services in the capacity of messenger also showing inspite of his being empanelled. Further, WW1 states that it is clear from the exhibits mentioned that he has been empanelled after selection process. Further, WWI states that Ex. W4 which is his absorption letter, the bank has given clear instructions to the managers not to give more than 200 days. It is still an enigma that inspite of exhausting the procedure of recruitment and selection and having clear vacancies the bank has in its own known wisdom has given4274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the workman -breaks. Further, WW1 states that in the year 1995 he has worked for 317 days in one calendar year. As well, he had again worked in the year 1996 and on till 31.3.1997 he has worked continuously. 31. Further WWI states, that on 31.3.1997 Respondent management asked the workman orally not to come to the duty from the next day. When the Workman asked reason for his termination the Manager concerned replied that these were strict instructions from the higher authorities. Further, WW1 states that he had given representation to the management but it was not accepted and he was asked to go out. Further, WW! states that bank authorities has neither issued any notice nor any pay in lieu thereof. The authority has violated all the statutory norms which are mandatory under the law. Further, WW1 states that he had worked continuously from 1991 to 1997 with unblemished service and with a hope which was imparted upon him by the authorities that he would be made permanent in near future. With this belief Workman worked on regular basis and Respondent extracted his services with less pay which is also violative of his fundamental right to say, 'equal pay for equal work.' 32. From the above statement of WW1 and on the basis of documentary evidence it is clear that the Workman had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 31.3.1997. Further, WWI was cross examined by the Respondent counsel but nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to discredit the testimony of this witness or to make it unbelievable. Respondent counsel gave the suggestion to the WW1 but the witness replied that it is true to say that he has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year in his entire service in any branch of the bank. It is not true to say that he is giving false deposition to get employment in the bank. Further, Respondent in his counter has not pleaded that before oral termination of the Workman on 31.3.1997 any notice or notice pay or compensation was paid to the Workman in accordance of provision contained u/s.25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 and Respondent failed to produce any evidence to this effect on record. Therefore, it is clearly established that the termination of the Workman from service by the Respondent vide oral order dated 31.3.1997 is in contravention of the provisions contained under section Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and action of Respondent in terminating the services of workman vide order dated 31.3.1997 is illegal and not justified. This point is decided in favour of the Workman. 33. Point No.IV: In view of the discussion and finding given at Point Nos.I and II, it is established the Petitioner Workman is not entitled for regularization in the services of the Respondent management. However, in view of the finding given at Point No.III, it is established that the termination of the Workınan from service vide oral order dated[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4275 31.3.1997 by the Respondent is in contravention of the provision contained under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, illegal and not justified. 34. Now, let us see in view of his illegal termination order to what relief the workman is entitled for? In this context the reference of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi flight Services AIR 2010 SCC page 502 is relevant wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:- 8. In the case of Sita Ram V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute2 this Court considered the matter thus: "21. The question, which, however, falls for our consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding reinstatement of the appellants in service. 22. Keeping in view the period during which the services were rendered by the respondent (sic appellants): the fact that the respondent had stopped its operation of bee farming, and the services of the appellants were terminated in December 1996, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could have been directed to be reinstated in service. 23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is required to be exercised judiciously. Relevant factors therefor were required to be taken into consideration; the nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the court for determination of such an issue. 24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of adequate amount of compensation in place of a direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would subserve the ends of justice. (See Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai [(2006) 11 SCC 684], M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748] and Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353]) 25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs." 9. The afore-referred two decisions of this Court and few more decisions were considered by us in the case of Jagbir JT 2008 (3)SC622 Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board3 albeit in the context of retrenchment of a daily wager in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more than 240 days in a year and we observed thus: "7. It is true that earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention to the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice." Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above in the matter at hand, the Workman has been terminated long back in the year 1997 from the service by the Respondent in contravention of the provision contained under Section 25-F. He was working as a temporary messenger and has not worked on a regular permanent post. Since more than 25 years has already been passed since this termination from Respondent service and he had worked as temporary workman for a period of six year i.e., from 1991 to 1997. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of appointment and period of appointment and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the award of compensation in place of direction to be reinstated in the service would be appropriate in case of such nature that could subserved and to meet the end of justice. Thus, in view of the above the Workman in this case is entitled for compensation instead of direction for reinstatement into service.4276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 35. Now question arises how much compensation would meet ends of justice. In view of the circumstances of the case, Workman has served in the service of the Respondent management from 1991 to 1997 and has also gone under physical and mental agony during long period of litigation for more than 24 years at different levels. In the opinion of the court payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the Workman for his illegal termination from service would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the claim statement is partly allowed. This Point is answered accordingly. ORDER The action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri V. Ome Rao, Temporary Messenger, with effect from 31.3.1997 is not justified. Therefore, Respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman in lieu of termination within two months from the date of receipt of this award. The claim of workınan for the relief of regularization of service is rejected. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 29th day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WWI: Sri V. Ome Rao MW1: Sri Aluru Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1 Photocopy of News paper advertisement Ex.W2: Photocopy of Service certificate Ex.W3: Photocopy of interview call letter Ex.W4: Photocopy of panel list 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 service certificate Ex.W11: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W12: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W13: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W14: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W15: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W16: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W17: Photocopy of service certificate[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4277 Ex.W18: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W19: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W20: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W21: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W22: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W23: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W24: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W25: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W26: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W27: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W28: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W29: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W30: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W31: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W32: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W33: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W34: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W35: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W36: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W37: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W38: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W39: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W40: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W41: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W42: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W43: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W44: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W45: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W46: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W47: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W48: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W49: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W50: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W51: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W52: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W53: Photocopy of service certificate Ex. Ex.W54: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W55: Photocopy of service certificate Ex.W56: Photocopy of notification through Employment Exchange for filling up vacancies Ex.W57: Photocopy of circular dt. 14.7.1999. 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 dr.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 10.8.984278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 998.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV gSA (a80/2002) idz kf”kr djrh [सं. ,y–12012/86/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 998.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.80/2002) 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-12012/86/2000- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 21st day of April, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 80/2002 [Old ID No.70/2000 of Industrial Tribunal No.I, Hyderabad] Between: Sri S. Chennababaiah, 27/384, Ambedkar Nagar, Anantapur. Dist.Anantapur. … Petitioner And The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Ratang Phani Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/86/2000-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.70/2000, 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:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4279 SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri S. Chennababaiah, Messenger, from the services of the Bank by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the he is entitled?‖ After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No.80/2002 and notices were issued to both the Workman and the management. 2. Before unfolding the factual matrix of the instant industrial dispute it would be apposite to have a bird eye view of a chequered history of the instant industrial dispute. Earlier instant industrial dispute along with the batch cases was decided by this Tribunal vide common award dated 17.5.2005 and the reference was answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Workman. That said common award dated 17.5.2005 was challenged by the aggrieved Workmen in various Writ petition No.6470/2014 along with batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgement dated 23.6.2014 allowed all batch of writ petitions and set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed in ID No.222 of 2001 and other batch of ID cases by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Respondent management of State Bank of India was directed to reengage the Writ Petitioners in position, which they have been occupying prior to their termination and further directed to consider their cases for regularization as and when the substantive vacancy arises. This judgement dated 23.6.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of AP, passed in WP No.6470/2014 and batch petitions was challenged by Respondent management before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2014. The aforesaid Writ Appeals No.1268/2014 and other Writ Appeals were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a common judgement dated 20.3.2019. Hon’ble High Court in aforesaid Writ Appeal was pleased to pass the order which is extracted as below:- “ 7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial Respondents, we see that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award af the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. AIl these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the4280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 Tribuna!; (2) the further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated: (3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, (4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.” Thus, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1268 of 2014 and batch cases. This Tribunal has taken up the matter of industrial dispute for hearing and deciding it afresh in view of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1268/2014 vide judgement dated 20.3.019. 3. The factual matrix of instant industrial dispute as narrated by the Workman in his claim statement are that, the Workman joined in the service of the management institution as Messenger from 1988 to 1996, and has rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 8 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 : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4281 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 High4282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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 (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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4283 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 Management4284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4285 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 19924286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4287 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 of4288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4289 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 notification. Further, Ex.W2 is the intimation for interview which is nothing to do with the proof of working days. Ex.W3 is the panel list. Ex.W4 is service certificate issued by the Branch Manager according to this certificate Workman has worked for a total of 157 days. Further, Ex.W5 is service certificate for the period from 1991 to 1996 showing that workman had worked for 564 days. 21. On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 Sri K. Bala Kotaiah and this witness has exhibited 12 documents, marked as Ex.M1 to M12. The details of these documents are as follows:- Ex.M.1 is the Settlement dated 17.11.1987. Ex.M2 is the Settlement dated 16.7.1988. Ex.M3 is the Settlement dated 27.10.1988. Ex.M4 is the Settlement dated 9.1.1991. Ex.M5 is the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated 9.6.1995. Ex.M6 is the Settlement dated 30.7.1996. Ex.M7 is the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27.2.1997. Ex.M8 is the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel. Ex.M9 is the Particulars of 1989 Non- Messengerial Panel. Ex.M10 is the Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel. Ex.M11 is the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No.86/98 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, Nacharam branch in terminating the services of Workman Sri S. Chennababaiah, a Messenger with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified?4290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4291 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, 1947.4292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4293 and it is agreed that all such posts sanctioned fallen vacant upto 31.3.1997 shall be filled before empanel list is allowed to lapse. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, Agreement dated 30.7.1996 was entered into between both the parties in respect of lapsing of the both the panels on 31.3.1997 and absorption of the Workmen from panel list was subject to availability of vacancy of post likely to arise upto 31.3.1997, have a binding force on Workman as well as management of State Bank of India in view of provision contained under section 18 (1) of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Point No.I is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent. 27. Point No.II:- Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of the Workman that the Respondent has terminated his services by oral order on 31.3.1997 without issuing any notice or paying any salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination order of the Workman from service is in violation of provision contained Under Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 28. On the other hand, Respondent counsel contended that Workman has not worked for 240 days in any preceding calendar year. Therefore, reference of the industrial dispute is not relevant. In this context, the Workman has examined himself as WW1 who has reiterated that Workman has been terminated from service by Respondent on 31.3.1997 without notice of salary or compensation in lieu thereof. Before examining the claim of the Workman on merit it would be apposite to reproduce the provision contained under section 25 F:- Section 25F provides:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No Workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the Workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the Workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the Workman; (2) where a Workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the Workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a Workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;4294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.”[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4295 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 calculating the 240 days service provision contained under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 is relevant. 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 on the basis of evidence 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, “My name was not sponsored by any employment exchange and I did not undergo the regular process of selection required for appointment in the bank” further, witness states, “I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire 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., 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.4296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4297 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 the4298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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:-[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4299 “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.4300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 39. In this context the Workman witness WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in the cross examination the witness WW1 states:- “I applied in response to the advertisement issued by the bank as per the settlements between the bank and the union. Further, witness states, the panels were prepared on the basis of the number of days of service of the temporary employees. The said employees were given regular appointment as per the settlements in order of their seniority in the panel. Further witness states, no junior to me is 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 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4301 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 31.3.19967 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 to4302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4303 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 are4304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4305 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. ORDER In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the services of Sri S. Chennababaiah, 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. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 21st day of April, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri S. Chennababaiah MW1: Sri K. Bala Kotaiah Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photocopy of News paper advertisement 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 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.16.7.884306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 999.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjk s ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; -1 ds iapkV औद्योगगक औद्योगगक (35/2004) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–12012/7/2004- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 999.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.35/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Mumbai-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12012/7/2004- IR (B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 Mumbai (Camp Court Goa) Present JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-35 OF 2004 Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India And Their workmen ( Smt. Malini A. Redkar) Appearances: For the management : Mr. S.V.Alva, Adv.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4307 For the workman : Absent Mumbai, dated the 19TH day of May, 2025. AWARD 1. By reference dated 12.4.2004, appropriate government has referred the following dispute before this Tribunal. “Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Santemo (Raia) Brancg, Goa in terminating the services of Smt. Malini Chandrakant Borkar alias Smt. Malini A. Redkar w.e.f. 4.6.2003 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for?” Accordingly industrial dispute case registered before this Tribunal. Case of the parties: The case of the workman Smt.Malini Borkar in brief as pleaded in her claim statement dated 21.05.2004 is to the effect that she was working for State Bank of India, Santemol (Raia) Branch since November 1996 till 2023 on temporary basis. Further, during the tenure of service one Mr.Victor Conceisao, who is the Branch Manager of the Bank was annoyed with her as a result of which her services were terminated/retrenched on 04.6.2003. In view of the said factual background, prayer has been made by the workman that impugned action on the part of the Bank, State Bank of India, Santemol (Raia) Branch, Goa thereby terminating/retrenching her services on 04.06.2003 be set aside and she may be reinstated in service. On behalf of the case of the Bank in written statement in brief it has been pleaded is as under: a. The party no. II approached the Bank for a DIR loan of Rs.3,000/- in September 1997 for the purposing of carrying out catering business. At her request the Bank granted the loan to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to her and for the said loan purpose as security, the Party No.II had signed the various agreements/security documents. Subsequently, the party no. II repair the loan taken by her and closed her loan account on 24.03.2000. B. Again on 19.02.2001, the party no. II applied for another loan to the tune of Rs.6,500/- for the same purpose, which was sanctioned by the Bank and for the purpose of security the party No. II signed the various loan documents. However, the party No. II was irregular in paying the loan instalment an no deposited were made by the party No.II to the loan account since August, 2002. The Bank repeatedly requested the party no. II for repayment of the loan, but the party No. II refused for the payment and as a result of which the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Assets as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. However, from August 2003 onwards the party No. II is paying instalment of Rs.100/- from the pension which she receives from the Goa Government under the Dayanand Nidhi Rojgar Yojna.4308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] c. It is not out of place to mention here that the Bank never gives this type of loan to its employees. Hence, it would be evident from this fact that the party no.II was never an employee of the Bank as stated in her claim statement. d. The party no. II was not working for the State Bank of India and she was not an employee of the State Bank of India. It is submitted that the party No. II on her own joined the Canteen in the Branch run by the Loan Implementation Committee (LIC) Staff Welfare Committee for the purpose of preparation of tea for the Staff since 1st November 1996 till 3rd June 2003 and she has received salary of Rs.500/- per month from the Local Implementation Committee. Accordingly, further pleaded but the Bank in the written statement that as a matter of fact, the claimant was engaged by Local Implementation Committee for the canteen of the bank was not the employee of the bank. As such, there is no relationship of workman between the claimant Smt. Malini Borkar and the Bank. As such, the present case filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed. Inspite of notice none appeared on behalf of the claimant Smt. Malini Borkar. Submission on behalf of Bank. Mr.S.V.Alva, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submitted that in order to facilitate the canteen facility to the employees who are working in the State Bank of India Branch, there is a canteen and persons who were engaged in the said canteen by Local Implementation Committee are not by any authority of the Bank. He further submits that Mrs.Malini is not a workman engaged by the Bank. In this regard, placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the management /State Bank of India of Mr.Parathasarathy s/o Mr.Krishnamurthy dated 15.5.2006 as well as the evidence in shape of affidavit filed by Smt. Malini. Learned counsel for the management placed reliance on the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union 2000 (5) SCC 531 and on the basis of the said judgment, he submits that the present case is covered by the law laid down by the Hobble Apex Court in the said matter and the same is liable to be dismissed. FINDING AND CONCLUSION: I have heard learned counsel for the respondent Shri A.S.Alva. Despite of notice, none appeared on behalf of the workman. Accordingly, after hearing learned counsel for the Bank and going through the records undisputed facts of the case are out. Mrs. Malini Borkar was engaged on 01.11.1996 to serve tea for Bank staff in the staff canteen of the bank by the staff welfare committee members and in the said capacity she worked and discharged her duties till 04.11.2003. Further, from the material on record, it also transpired that the claimant Mrs.Malini Borkar has not produced any documents evidence in order to prove that she was engaged by any authority of the State Bank of India, Santemol (Raia) Branch, Goa.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4309 Rather on the other hand, the bank by way pleading and evidence, established that claimant was engaged by the Local Implementation Committee/Staff Welfare Committee. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra) held as under: [27] The learned counsel for the employees further placed reliance on Hand-Book on the Staff Welfare Activities prepared by the S.B.I on 8.8.1963 on the basis of agreement between the Bank and the representative of the Staff Federation. It provides for Staff Welfare Fund and a scheme for creation, conduct and accounting procedure of such funds, and the relevant part thereof is as under: “Staff Welfare Fund Creation, conduct and Accounting Procedure (i) The Staff Welfare Fund consists of Funds sanctioned annually by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank. The funds to the extent utilised are drawn from the charges account at the end of the year. The funds are the property of the Bank earmarked for providing amenities of the staff and carrying out welfare activities for the employees of the Banks a whole. (ii) It is for Central Office to allocate suitable amounts to the various Circles to be utilised for the welfare activities in the Circles. (iii) For certain welfare activities organised and/or conducted at the Central level, separate funds are allocated by Central Office as per the provisions made. (iv) Welfare activities are generally of the following nature but the list is not exhaustive:- a) Promotion of canton facilities b) Provision of libraries and reading rooms. c) Encouragement of sports and games - indoor and outdoor d) Promotion of cultural activities e) Improved medical facilities including reservation of beds in hospitals and sanatoria. f) Establishment of holiday homes and convalescent Homes. g) Educational facilities - provision of educational scholarships etc. to sons and daughters of employees and reservations of eats in schools. (v) AT each Local Head Office there should be a Circle Welfare Committee to organize, conduct and supervise the welfare activities in respect of offices located in the area covered by the Circle. One of the main functions of the Circle Welfare committee will be to allot funds either generally or activity-wise for the welfare activities in the offices located in the area covered by the Circle including Central Office establishments. It will also be the function of the Circle Welfare Committee to satisfy itself that funds are being utilised properly for the purpose intended. (vi) Local Implementation Committee should be formed at each Branch and also at the respective Regional Offices. Local Head Offices and Central Office establishments and other offices, if any, to determine the particular welfare activity or activities to be conducted at their respective establishments out of the funds allocated to them by the Circle Welfare Committee and within the heads of activities,if4310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] necessary, through sub-committees and will also suggest which consulted by the Circle Welfare Committee, the particular types of activities which should be undertaken at the respective offices. These Committees will render appropriate accounts of the Circle Welfare Committees every six months or as otherwise directed. Promotion of Canteens - Subsidy 11 (a) In order to provide further subsidy to staff canteen from outside the scope of the staff welfare fund the wages of canteen employees on a uniform scale on monthly basis : paid out of the Bank’s Charges Account, on the basis of the number of employees served at the canteen as shown in Annexure I at the end of this Chapter. It may, however, be noted that it will not be in order to utilise for the canteen any amount excess of its actual wage bill or the prescribed ceiling as shown in Annexure- I, whichever is less. Wherever canteen employees are engaged by the Local Implementation Committee their wages in excess of the subside will have to be borne by the LIC.” 33. Learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the decision in M.M.R.Khan v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 191 : (AIR 1990 SC 937) and submitted that status of the employees of the canteen run by the LIC should be that on non-statutory recognised canteens as held in the said case. In our view, that very judgment was considered by this Court in R.B.I’s case (1996 AIR SCW 1298) : AIR 1996 SC 1241: 1996 Lab IC 1048) and was distinguished. Therefore, it does not require further discussion in this matter. However, it is to be stated that in that judgment itself, the Court has observed that the Canteens rugby the different Railway establishments were classifiable into three categories, namely. (1) Statutory Canteens - These are canteens required to be provided compulsorily in view of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. (2) Non-Statutory Recognised Canteens - These are run by any establishment which may or may not be governed by the Act, but which admittedly employ 250 or less than 250 employees and hence, it is not obligatory on the Railway to maintain them. However, they have been set up as a staff welfare measure where employees exceed 100 in number. These canteens are established with prior approval and recognition of the Railway Board as per the prescribed detailed in the Railway Establishment Manual. (3) Non-statutory Non-recognised canteens - These are run at establishments under category (2) above, but employ 100 or less than 100 employees and are established without prior approval or recognition of Railway Board. With regard to the employees in categories (1) and (2) above, the Court held that they are Railway employees for all purposes and they cannot be deprived of the status merely because some other employees similarly or dissimilarly situated may also claim the same status. With regard to the third category, the Court held that employees of non-statutory non- recognised canteens are not entitled to claim the status of the Railway servants because Railway administration was having no control on their working. It also observed that no rules whatsoever were applicable to the recruitment of the workers and their service conditions.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4311 34.In the present case, in our view, the canteens run by the LIC in a branch having strength of less than 100 employees are non-statutory non- recognized canteens because admittedly there is neither statutory provision nor any obligation arising out of award or contract between the employees of the Bank in running such canteens. As stated earlier, finally the 4th settlement was arrived at between All India SBI Staff Federation and the Bank which inter alia provides that Bank will take over canteens from Local Implementation Committees concerned at such offices/branches having a minimum staff strength of 100 where the canteens are still being run by the said Committees. Hence, contractual obligation is limited to that extent. For the canteens run by the Local Implementation Committees, there is no question of its recognition by the State Bank as in the case of recognised canteens in the Railways where Railway Board granted recognition to the canteens as per prescribed detail in the Railway Establishment Manual. On the contrary, the status of canteens run by the Local Implementation Committees would be non-statutory non- recognised canteens. The employees of such canteens were not under the control of the Bank and their appointments are not governed by any rules framed by the SBI. 35. The learned counsel for the employees further relied upon the decision in Parimal Chandra Raha and Others v. Life Insurance Corpn. Of India and Others [1995 Supp (2) SCC 611] and submitted that as held in para 25 of the said decision, it should impliedly be held that Bank was under an obligation to provide canteen facilities to the employees as part of the service conditions. Relevant para is as under:- “What emerges from the statute law and the judicial decisions is as follows: (i) Whereas under the provisions of the Factories Act, it is statutorily obligatory on the employer to provide and maintain canteen for the use of his employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and, therefore, the workers employed in such canteen are the employees of the management. (ii) Where, although it is not statutorily obligatory to provide a canteen, it is otherwise an obligation on the employer to provide a canteen, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers working in the canteen, the employees of the management. The obligation to provide a canteen has to be distinguished from the obligation to provide facilities to run canteen. The canteen run pursuant to the latter obligation, does not become a part of the establishment. (iii) The obligation to provide canteen may be explicit or implicit. Where the obligation is not explicitly accepted by or cast upon the employer either by an agreement or an award, etc., it may be inferred from the circumstances, and the provisions of the canteen may be held to have become a part of the service conditions of the employees. Whether the provision for canteen service has become a part of the service conditions or not, is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances in each case. Where to provide canteen services has become a part of the service conditions of the employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers in such canteen become the employees of the management. (iv) Whether a particular facility or service has become implicitly part of the service conditions of the employees or not, will depend, among others, on the nature of the service/facility, the contribution the service in question makes to the efficiency of the employees and the establishment, whether the service is available as a matter of right to all the employees in their capacity as employees and nothing more, the number of employees employed in the establishment and the number of employees who avail of the service, the length of time for which the service has been continuously available, the hours during which it is available, the nature and character of management, the interest taken by the employer in providing, maintaining, supervising and controlling the service, the contribution made by the management in the form of infrastructure and funds for making the service available etc.4312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 36.As stated above, in the present case there is no statutory or otherwise obligation of the employer to provide the canteen. Therefore, the aforesaid decision would have no bearing. However, the learned counsel for the employees submitted that obligation to maintain canteen may be explicit or implicit as held in the said decision and that can be inferred from the facts of the present case as the Bank has admitted by four settlements stated above that it would provide canteen facilities to the employees where staff strength in a particular branch is 100 and above. He, therefore, submitted that thereafter there cannot be any discrimination for remaining branches. Hence it should be impliedly held that there is an obligation to run the canteens. In our view, this type of inference is not possible because the SBI Staff Federation in various settlements stated above has not considered it to be an obligation of the Bank to run such canteens. At the most, it can be inferred that Bank has an obligation to promote running of canteens at its branches as a part of its staff welfare activities. 37 Further, we entirely agree with the decision rendered in the R.B.Is case (supra) by the three-Judge Bench and the facts in the present case are similar to the facts of that case. Presuming that privilege of providing canteen facilities to the employees exist, yet it would be difficult to hold that the Bank should provide the said facility by running canteen by itself. To promote canteen facilities by providing subsidy or other facilities is altogether different from running the canteen. Running of a canteen in a small branch having staff strength less than a particular limit may not be economical, but may be a waste. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Bank that in some areas, staff strength may be less than 10. Further, the appointment of the employees by the Bank has been regulated by the State Bank of India General Regulations, which are statutory regulations framed by the Reserve Bank of India with previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. In the case of canteen employees run by the LIC, the Bank does not have any control in their appointment and the aforesaid recruitment rules are not required to be observed. 38 We may mention here that learned counsel for the employees submitted that in such cases Court should lift the veil and find out the real situation and if that is done it would be apparent that as a part of the service conditions Bank is required to provide canteen facility to its employees. We may state that there is no veil and, therefore, there is no question of lifting it. The Scheme framed by the Bank is crystal clear. It provides that Bank shall promote certain welfare activities for the benefit of its employees. One of such welfare activities is promotion of canteen facility. There is a vast difference between promotion and providing. 39Further, whether Bank should provide canteen facilities in a branch having staff strength of 100 or more employees on the basis of bipartite agreement between the Bank Management and All India SBI Staff Federation, is a matter of policy decision and may depend upon viability and other factors of running of such canteens at other branches. It is for the Bank to decide in which branches canteen facilities should be provided and not by the employees of the canteens run by the Local Implementation Committees. At the most, employees of the Bank can raise such a contention. 40 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that LIC consist of employees of the Bank and those employees are directly under the control of the Bank, therefore, it should be held that Bank is the employer of the persons working in the canteen. This submission, in our view, is totally far-fetched. Firstly, it is to be stated that in a canteen which provides facilities to the members of the staff, outsider is not required to be included in the Committee or its Management. In the case of RBI (Supra), the LIC not only consisted of Bank employees but some Bank employees were required to do full time work. Still, however, this Court has not considered that Bank was having any control in working of the canteens. 41 We may also state that in the present case there is no question of application of provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and, therefore, the decisions rendered by this Court interpreting the said Act are not discussed. 42 We, therefore, hold that employees of the canteens which are run at various branches by the Local Implementation Committees as per the welfare scheme framed by the SBI would not become employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arising under the Award to run such canteens. Hence, it is not necessary to decide the second question that fresh petition for the same cause was not maintainable in view of the order dated 14.10.1985 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.840 of 1977. Reverting to the facts of the present case workman Smt. Malini A Redcar was engaged to serve tea in the canteen by the Local Implementation Committee, so she cannot become employee of the Bank.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4313 As such the relief as claimed by workman/Smt. Malini A Redcar by means of reference dated 12.4.2004 in regard to setting aside her termination order dated 4.6.2003 cannot be granted in view of the above said position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union. (Supra) For the foregoing reasons, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1000.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj गरै ीसन आंजीगनयर (िाय ु सेना) सैन्द्य आंजीगनयररग सेिा चंडीगढ़ ds izca/kr=] lca ) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je औद्योगगक औद्योगगक U;k;ky; चंडीगढ़- 1 ds iapkV (132/2018) idz kf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–13012/03/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 1000.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.132/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Garrison Engineer ( Air Force) Military Engineering Service Chandigarh and their workmen. [No. L-13012/03/2018- IR (B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, H.J.S. ID No.132/2018 Registered on 21.01.2019 Paras Ram S/o Sh. Bhai Lal R/o H.No.322, Small Flats, Dhanas, Chandigarh-120036. ...........Workman Versus 1. Garrison Engineer (Air Force) Military Engineering Service, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh- 160036. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Military Engineering Service, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh-160036. ........Managements/ Respondents Ms. Aruna Sachdeva AR for Workman Managements/ Respondents (ex-parte) Judgment reserved on 01st May, 2025 Judgment Pronounced on 20th May, 20254314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] JUDGMENT/ AWARD 1. Instant Industrial Dispute has been registered for adjudication on the basis of a Reference vide Notification No. L-13012/03/2018-IR(DU) dated 04.12.2018 under clause (d) of Sub- Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act), of the Ministry of Labour- Government of India as follows:- ―Whether the action of Garrison Engineer, MES, Sector, 37A, Chandigarh in not accepting the demand for reinstatement of workman Sh. Paras Ram, with back wages and consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief workman concerned is entitled to and from which date.‖ 2. The case of Workman/ Petitioner- As per the claim statement filed by the workman he was selected as a casual labour and engaged by by MES dept.GE(1) R&D Chandigarh on 01.01.1994. He was working for 8 hours a day and monthly salary of the workman was fixed at Rs.2800/- and the last drawn salary by the workman was Rs.6,000/- Per Month and the same was paid by Sh. Sharma and Sh. Rana. It is said that the workman was performing his service satisfactorily and was under the control of the management-respondent. The workman was promised by the management-respondent that he will be regularized and by making such promises the management take benefits of personal obligation sending workman to the home of friends and relatives to do the plumbing work. It is said that there was no contractor between the management and workman there was direct dealing and w.e.f. 1994 till his services were dispensed with. It is stated that the workman was assigned work and his leave was being sanctioned by the J.E. Even the complaint slips dated 15.09.2003, 02.04.2006, 06.01.2009, 03.12.2014 on which the workman was sent to do the plumbing work was always authorized by J.E. On 21.02.2016 the workman reported on duty but the management did not allow the workman to work. The workman was thrown out of work when he needed financial support and when he was Senior Citizen at the time of retrenchment. It is said that the workman was paid from the contingency fund of the Government duly authorized by the accountants of the management but the same was given after getting sign of the workman on blank voucher without date. The Management did not issued salary slips or receipts or deducted amount for ESI contribution. It is said that the workman got exploited and was in continuation of working till 2016 i.e. 22 years which proves existence of work and the post. It is said that there was always a post of Plumber in existence in office or organization. The workman filed a Demand Notice dated 20.05.2016 through a Representative but the dispute did not settled/ solved by the Hon’ble Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh. It is prayed that workman be reinstated with full back wages alongwith all consequential reliefs alongwith 18% interest per annum from the date of termination. 3. The case of Management- In response to the notice issued none on behalf of respondent appeared and ultimately vide order dated 12.07.2023 the respondent management was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte and this way no written statement/ reply on behalf of respondent has been filed in this case and as such there is no case of management which may be stated herein.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4315 4. During hearing of the case the workman Paras Ram Sharma has got himself examined as Workman Witness No.1 and during recording of his evidence certain documents were brought on record which has been marked as follows: Sr. No. Particulars Annexure/Exhibit 1. Copy of Gate Passes Ex. D-1 2. Copies of Muster Roll Ex. D-2 5. Arguments of Parties: Heard Ld. Counsel on the workman since respondent proceeded ex- parte none turned upon on behalf of opposite party to argue. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the workman that initially the workman was appointed in year 1994 on the post of Plumber and he continuously served with the Department (Respondent) till year 2016 when he was prevented from attending his duties by oral order. It is argued that initially salary of Rs.2,800/- per month was being made which was increased upto Rs.6,000/- per month at the time when he was terminated. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of workman that infact non appointment letter was given and there is no document which may show that workman was getting regular salary but these documents are always in the possession of respondent which are not accessible to the workman. It is also argued that workman had not worked under any contractor and was directly engaged by opposite party. There had been no complaint against the workman but he has been illegally terminated from the service. The workman has worked for more than 240 days continuously and therefore he was entitled for regularization in the service. It has been also argued that when workman Sh. Paras Ram raised Industrial Dispute against the opposite party had appeared and a stand was taken on behalf of opposite party that workman was not a direct employee of management, he was engaged for petty repair on day to day basis whenever there has been complaint regarding water supply/ plumbering. Because of adamant attitude of opposite party the suggestion to reinstate the workman with back wages was turned down and conciliation proceeding failed and thereafter, the present reference has been received to this Tribunal for adjudication. 6. The only point to be determine in the present case is- Whether the action of Garrison Engineer, MES, Sector, 37A, Chandigarh in not accepting the demand for reinstatement of workman Sh. Paras Ram, with back wages and consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief workman concerned is entitled to and from which date. FINDINGS 7. The claim statement filed on behalf of workman speaks that he was selected and engaged on 01.01.1994 by MES Dept. GE E (I) R & D, Chandigarh but on the record no such appointment letter has been brought to prove this fact. It is stated in the claim petition that his services were dispensed with on 21.02.2016 when the workman reported for his duty. It is the case of workman himself that no appointment letter was issued to him and even no termination letter was given to him in absence of this two important document i.e. Appointment Letter or Termination Letter it is very difficult for this Court to arrive at the4316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] fact as to whether the workman was infact employee of opposite party or not. It is claimed that initially the workman was being paid salary of Rs.2,800/- which arose upto Rs.6000/- per month for the last salary but petty is that no such document have been brought on the record to show any kind of payment to this effect. The only document which are available on the record are copies of some complaint slips which appears issued for the purpose of attending plumbering repairing work. The complaint speaks itself cannot be treated as any authenticated document to prove that workman Paras Ram was infact an regular employee of the respondent Department. It may also be noticed that even in said complaint slips the name of the person is written as Parsu Ram whether said Parsu Ram is same person Paras Ram or it was a different one is not clear from the claim petition. Not only this blank Muster Roll Sheets are also filed and have been marked as document D-2 during the evidence of Paras Ram but these Muster Roll sheets do not bear signature of any competent authority and is completely blank except signatures of persons named in Column 2 (Employees). These Muster Roll sheets do not show attendance of employees mentioned and even there is no mention of any payment in these Muster Roll sheets and therefore there is nothing to prove that workman Paras Ram was infact getting initially Rs.2,800/- and he received Rs.6,000/- as his last salary. Not only this, even the claim petition is not consistent on the date of alleged termination vide Paragraph 5 of Claim Petition it is stated that on 21.02.2016 the workman reported on duty but the management did not allow him to work meaning thereby his oral termination was 21.02.2016. Vide paragraph 15 of the claim statement the workman filed his demand notice on 20.05.2016. If one goes through the evidence by way of affidavit of workman there is specific statement in the affidavit that services were terminated on 18.05.2013. Now the question arises which statement to be taken as correct the termination date mentioned in Statement of Claims or the termination date specifically mentioned in Paragraph 1, 2 of the affidavited evidence. It may also be noticed that it has been stated by the workman that his salary was being paid by Sh. Sharma and Sh. Rana but there is no details of these two persons whether they were paying salary of workman from their own pocket or from official account. It is also not clear about the further identity of these two persons whether they were person in authority or any private contractor. It appears that for the causal work as and when arose the workman was engaged as a plumber and there is nothing more than that. In above view of the matter the relief sought by workman cannot be granted. 8. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the present reference No. 13012/03/2018-IR(DU) dated 04.12.2018 is decided against the workman and it is held that the action of Garrison Engineer, MES, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh in not accepting the demand for reinstatement of workman Paras Ram with back wages and consequential benefits is legal, just and valid. 9. It is therefore-[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4317 ORDERED That the present ID No.132/2018 titled as Paras Ram Versus MES arising out of reference 13012/03/2018-IR(DU) dated 04.12.2018 is dismissed. Workman is not entitled for any relief. 10. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication. Dated: 20.05.2025 B.K. Gautam, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1001.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंगिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; - -1 ds iapkV (11/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–12012/85/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 1001.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Mumbai-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12012/85/2012- IR (B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 Mumbai (Camp Court Goa) Present JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-11 OF 2013 Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India And Their workmen Appearances: For the management : Absent. For the workman : Absent.4318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Mumbai, dated the 21st day of May, 2025. AWARD By reference dated 01/03/2013 Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. CGIT-11/2013 has been registered. “Whether the action of management to remove Shri Assis G. Lorena, Driver without any compensation is legal and justified? What is the entitlement of workman?” Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. CGIT-11/2013 has been registered. Statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman on 18.4.2013 and written statement on behalf of the management was filed on 28.8.2014. On From the perusal of record, it is clearly established that claimant/workman has not filed affidavit of evidence inspite of giving him several opportunities; and it is a case of no evidence from the side of workman/claimant in support of his case. Thus, in view of the above said facts and the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under: “It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.” In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under: “The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.” And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as under: “The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4319 As the workman did not turn up for filing evidence on affidavit so it is a case of no evidence filed on behalf of workman in support of case set up by him, liable to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief. Award as above. Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1002.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj मोरमाईगाओ पोिम ट्रस्ि ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; -1 ds iapkV (02/2011) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–36011/05/2010- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025 S.O. 1002.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Mumbai- I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Mormaugao Port Trust and their workmen. [No. L-36011/05/2010- IR (B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 (Camp Court Goa) Mumbai Present JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-02 OF 2011 Employers in relation to the management of Mumarmagao Port Trust And Their workmen ( Shri Isidorio Mendes) Appearances: For the management : Ms.Divyashri, Adv. For the workman : Absent Goa, dated the 19TH day of May, 2025.4320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD By reference dated 05.01/2011 the following reference was made to this Tribunal. ―Whether the action of the management of Mormugao Port Trust, Goa in denying promotion to Shri Isidorio Mendes, Chief Cashier/FA & CAO is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?‖ During the pendency of the present reference on behalf of the Murmagao Port & Railway Workers Union, party no.1, an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Anil Ekoskar, General Secretary of the Union which reads as under: AFFIDAVIT TO WITHDRAW THE DISPUTE 1. I, Shri Anil Ekoskar, Secretary of Mormugao Port & Railway Workers’ Union representing the Second Party Workman, Shri Isidorio Mendes named in the above case Reference No. CGIT - 1/2 of 2011, on solemn affirmation state and submit as under: 2. I say that I am not interested in contesting further in the subject case and hence withdraw ourself from the said dispute. Ms.Divyashri, learned counsel for the management that she has no objection if the second party workman withdraws the present reference. For the foregoing reason, as on behalf of the second party an affidavit has been moved which is quoted herein above. The present reference is dismissed as withdrawal, Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 10 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1003.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (96/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–41012/90/2003- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 10th June, 2025 S.O. 1003.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.96/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen. [No. L-41012/90/2003- IR (B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. No. 96 of 2003[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4321 Reference No. L-41012/90/2003-IR(B-I) dated 19.09.2003 BETWEEN The Divisional Organizing Secretary, Uttra Railway Karmchari Union 283/63, Kha Garhi Kanora (Premvatin Nagar) PO-Manaknagar, Lucknow. Versus The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001/DME (P), Northern Rly, Lucknow. Judgment By means of order/reference no. L-41012/90/2003-IR(B-I) dated 19.09.2003, the Central Government considered it desirable to refer the dispute for adjudication to the following effect:- “क्या प्रबंधन, ईत्तर रेलिे, लखनउ, द्वारा श्री सइदरुिंमान का नाम िर् म1983 की क्लीनर पद की िटरष्ठता सूची म ेंशागमल न करना नययोगचत एि ंन्द्यायसंगत िं?ै यदद निंीं तो कममकार दकस ऄनुतोर् को को पाने का ऄगधकारी िंै?” In response, the claimant has filed his statement of claim on 03.11.2003, in which it has been stated that Sri Said ur Rehman, workman was initially engaged as casual labour on the post of cleaner on 01.01.1980; however, his services were retrenched on 04.09.1981. He approached this Tribunal by filing ID case no. 56 of 1986, which was decided and award was passed in the year 1987, against which respondent filed a writ petition No. 17910 of 1987 before the Hon’ble High Court, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he was reinstated in services. In view of above said factual background he has prayed for following relief: “ऄतः कममकार / यूगनयन यिं गनिेदन करते िं ैंदक ईपरोक्त तथ्यों के अधार पर कममकार को िर्म 1983-84 के पैनल में िरीयता के ऄनुसार सभी गिंत लाभों िेतन अदद सगिंत समायोगजत करने िंतेु कममकार के पक्ष में ऄिाडम पाटरत करने की कृपा करें, मिंान कृपा िंोगी।” The respondent has filed written statement and thereafter the rejoinder and documents have been exchanged. On behalf of respondent a plea was taken that at this belated stage when the workman has retired from service then in that circumstances he should not be entitled for any benefit as claimed by him. In order to decide said controversy it would be appropriate to it would state following facts: In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 455 it was noted at paragraph 6 as follows: "6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since heel) settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from ser-vice. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other4322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex-facie bad and incompetent." Further, in S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003 (4) SCC 27 the position was reiterated as follows: (at para 17) "17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree. It is true, as held in M/s. Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen (supra) AIR 1959 SC 1217), that merely because the Industrial Disputes Act does not pro-vide for a limitation for raising the dispute it does not mean that the dispute can be raised at any time and without regard to the delay and reasons therefor. There is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an industrial tribunal, even so it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale. A delay of 4 years in raising the dispute after even reemployment of the most of the old workmen was held to be fatal in M/ s. Shalimar Works Limited v. Their Workmen (supra) AIR 1959 SC 1217, In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and others (supra) AIR 2000 SC 839, a delay of 7 years was held to be fatal and disentitled to workmen to any relief. In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others v. Union of India and others (supra) 1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief. Although the High Court has opined that there was a delay of 7 to 9 years in raising the dispute before the Tribunal but we find the High Court factually not correct. The employment of the appellants was terminated sometime in 1985-86 or 1986-87. Pursuant to the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Employees Under P&T Department v. Union of India (supra) AIR 1987 SC 2342, the department was formulating a scheme to accommodate casual labourers and the appellants were justified in awaiting the outcome thereof. On 16-1-1990 they were refused to be accommodated in the scheme. On 28- 12-1990 they initiated the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act followed by conciliation proceedings and then the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court. We do not think that the appellants deserve to be non suited on the ground of delay." Also, in Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity vs. Pahal Singh reported in 2007 12 SCC 193 and more particularly paragraph Nos. 10, 11, which read as under:- "10. The Labour Court was also under an obligation to consider as to whether any relief, if at all could be granted in favour of the workman in view of the fact that the industrial dispute had been raised after 18 years. It was obligatory on the part of the Labour Court to consider that the respondent was in employment for very short period. It had also not arrived at a finding that the respondent was in continuous service within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or for that matter in terminating the ser-vices of the respondent, the appellant did not comply with the requirements of law particularly Section 6- N thereof. In absence of such a finding, the High Court in our opinion should have interfered with the Award.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4323 11. It is now well-settled principle of law that "delay de-feats equity". (see also Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank v. Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91) Further, in the present case, it is also not in dispute rather admitted by the workman he has raised his grievance to be included in screening for year 1983-84 by means of raising industrial dispute in the year 2003, which was referred to this Tribunal after 20 years, as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Because, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in the case of M.D./Chief Manager, Jaipur Agar, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur v. General Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Workers Organisation, Jaipur, 2024 (182) FLR 892, has held as under: “6. In the case at hand, the respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Driver vide order dated 17.12.1986. Accordingly, the benefit of first selection scale became due after nine years, sometime in 2004- 2005. The same was not done and neither was the non-grant of the benefit at the time was challenged by the respondent-workman. The benefit of first selection scale was only granted vide order dated 06.04.2004. This deferment was also not challenged immediately and was only challenged for the first time in 2013. The first issue that is to be decided by this Court is what effect, if any, would this delay have on the merits of the case. 7. To decide the first issue, recourse may be taken to Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment of Mohan Lal (supra), the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the ID Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh [Asstt. Eng., Rajasthan Development Corpn. v. Gitam Singh], that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed. 20. Now, if the facts of the present case are seen, the position that emerges is this: the workman worked as a work-charged employee for a period from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 (in all he worked for 286 days during his employment). The services of the workman were terminated with effect from 18.2.1986. The workman raised the industrial dispute in 1992 i.e. after 6 years of termination. The Labour Court did not keep in view admitted delay of 6 years in raising the industrial dispute by the workman. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in restoring the award of the Labour Court whereby reinstatement was granted to the workman. Though, the compensation awarded by the Single Judge was too low and needed to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh (supra), held as under: "6. We shall at the outset deal with the issue of limitation. The respondent was retired compulsorily from service on 4.1.2003. Original Civil Suit No. 41 of 2010 was instituted in 2010. The trial Judge as4324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] well as the first appellate court were of the view that the suit was not barred by limitation since the representation of the respondent for the grant of the three selection grades was rejected on 18.1.2010. The first appellate court, while concurring with the trial Judge also noted that the "final request" made by the respondent-plaintiff on 18.1.2010 was rejected and hence the suit was within limitation. 7. The respondent waited for seven long years after his retirement to pursue a claim for the grant of selection grade. This was clearly beyond the residuary period of limitation of three years provided in Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. That apart, in the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shankar Lal Parmar, the Court has considered the ambit of the scheme for selection grade. This Court has held thus: "6. Another important and relevant clause in the said order for our perusal is Clause 7, which is also reproduced hereinbelow: 7. Selection grades in terms of this order shall be granted only to those employees whose record of service is satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the selection grade.' 7. Clause 7 makes it clear that only those employees would be entitled for grant of selection grades, whose service record has been satisfactory and are otherwise eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority but have not been able to get the same as there might not be any channel of promotion or for want of sanctioned posts in the cadre." 8. The Court held that in terms of Clause 7, only those employees whose service record has been satisfactory could be entitled to be granted selection grade. In this context, the Court held: "17. Clause 7 further makes it clear that only those/such employees would be entitled to be granted selection grade whose service record has been satisfactory. This implicitly shows that the person who has an untainted, unblemished, clean and unpolluted record in service would be treated on a higher pedestal than those who have either tainted, blemished, unclean or polluted record. This obviously appears to be a reasonable classification and is under the ambit and touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is neither any ambiguity nor any doubt in the same." 9. On the touchstone of the above principles, it is evident that the respondent had been subjected to several disciplinary proceedings and as many as 19 charge- sheets were issued against him which resulted in penalties of a varying nature. The service record of the respondent cannot be regarded as untainted or clean. 10. Ms Nidhi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that some of the penalties which were imposed on the respondent were without cumulative effect. The consequence of the withholding of increments without cumulative effect is that after the period prescribed, the respondent would be entitled to restoration of the original pay scale or the original pay. However, this does not obviate the position that the imposition of the penalty itself indicates that the service record of the employee was not satisfactory. Another submission which has been urged is that the penalties were of a minor nature. Assuming that to be so, it is evident that for the grant of selection grade, the respondent did not fulfil the requirements of a clean record of service. The grant of the selection grade is not a matter of right and was subject to the terms and conditions which were stipulated. The respondent failed to fulfil these terms and conditions. 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that both on the question of limitation as well as on merits, the respondent was not entitled to the relief which was sought. The suit instituted by the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4325 respondent resp seven years after he had demitted office was barred by limitation. That apart, the respondent failed to meet the basic requirements for the selection grade." (Emphasis supplied) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bichitrananda Behera (supra), after considering the erstwhile judgments of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, Union of India v. N. Murugesan, and Chairman, State Bank of India v. M.J. James, concluded that delay and laches are vital in service matters, and can be seen as acquiescence.” Reverting to the facts of present case, as the relief which is claimed by the claimant pertains to year 1984 in respect to which grievance has been raised on 03.11.2003, cannot be granted in view of the position of law as stated herein above. Award For the foregoing reasons the workman is not entitled for any relief as per the Reference No. L-41012/90/2003- IR(B-I) dated 19.09.2003 and the same is answered accordingly. Lucknow. Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer 09th April, 2025 नइ ददल्ली, 10 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1004.—औद्योगगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (71/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y–41012/42/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 10th June, 2025 S.O. 1004.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.71/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway and their workmen. [No. L-41012/42/2015- IR (B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. No. 71 of 2015 Reference No. L-41012/42/2015-IR(B-I) dated: 09.11.2015 BETWEEN4326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Shri Radhey Shyam S/o Ram Dulare C/o Shri Parvez Aalam283/63 KH, Gari Kannora (Premvati Nagar), Post Mank Nagar, Lucknow - 11 Versus 1. The Sr. Divisional Personnal Officer, North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow 2. The Sr. Divisional Operational Manager, North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow Judgment By means of order/reference no. L-41012/42/2015-IR(B-I) dated: 09.11.2015, the Central Government considered it desirable to refer the dispute for adjudication to the following effect:- ―क्या प्रबंधन, पूर्वोतर रेलर्वे लखनऊ द्वारा श्री राधेश्याम पुत्र श्री राम दुलारे को गदनाक 30-06-90 नौकरी से गनकाल गदया जाना न्यायोगित एर्वं बैध है? यगद नही ंतो श्रगमक गकस राहत को पाने के हकदार है?‖ In response, the claimant has field his statement of claim on 25.01.2016; wherein it has been stated that he was appointed as casual labour in NER, DRM Officer, Lucknow. In the year 1986-897 his screening was done; however his services are retrenched on 30.06.1990. In view of the said factual background it is submitted by the claimant that the impugned action of the respondents thereby retrenching/terminating his services is in contravention to the provisions section 25 F, G & H as well as Article 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted by the claimant that aggrieved by the retrenchment order he submitted a representation on 10.12.200; however, the same has not been decided till date. In view said actual background he has raised the present industrial dispute. Thereafter, written statement, rejoiner and documents were exchanged between the parties. Smt. Pinki Sharma on behalf of respondent raised a preliminary objections ah the relief as claimed by the claimant cannot be granted as he has raised the grievances of his retrenchment of service for which the casue of action has arisen on 30.06.1990 and filed filed his claim petition on 25.01.2016. Smt. Pinki Sharma also submitted that during pendency of present case Sri Radhey Shyam has also retired. Sri Parvez Alam on behalf of workman while rebutting the submissions made by the respondent submits that there is no time limit for raising industrial dispute u/s 10 read with section 12 of the ID Act, 1947 so on the ground of delay the same cannot be rejected. In this regard he has placed reliance on following case laws: a. Mahavir Singh v. UP State Electricity Board & ors. 1999 (82) FLR 169. b. Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2015 Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana & anr. c. Union of India & oirs v. Sri Ram Misra & anr 2009 (120) FLR 1. In addition to the above said facts, Sri Parvez Alam also submits that the services of the workman have been terminated in violation of section 25 F of the Act so, the same is contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kurukshetra University v. Prithvi Singh 2018 LLR 371. Accordingly, Sri Parvez Alam has requested that the preliminary objection taken by the respondent has no merit liable to be rejected.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4327 I have heard the learned counsel for parties and going through record. As per the admitted case of the present case, Sri Radhey Shayam who was working on the post of cleaner as casual labour, appointed on 01.06.1976, thereafter was given temporary status in the year 1986-87, lastly on 30.06.1990 his services were terminated. Aggrieved by the same he raised an industrial dispute in the year 2015 accordingly, a reference was made on 09.11.2015, quoted herein above, in response to same he field the present case. Thus, in view of said fact the question is to be considered whether at this belated the relief as claimed by workman can be granted? Further, in the present case, it is also not in dispute rather admitted by the workman he has raised his grievance agaisnt his alleged terimianiton on 30.06.1990 by means of raising industrial dispute in the year 2015, which was referred to this Tribunal after 25 years, as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Because, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in the case of M.D./Chief Manager, Jaipur Agar, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur v. General Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Workers Organisation, Jaipur, 2024 (182) FLR 892, has held as under: “6. In the case at hand, the respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Driver vide order dated 17.12.1986. Accordingly, the benefit of first selection scale became due after nine years, sometime in 2004- 2005. The same was not done and neither was the non-grant of the benefit at the time was challenged by the respondent-workman. The benefit of first selection scale was only granted vide order dated 06.04.2004. This deferment was also not challenged immediately and was only challenged for the first time in 2013. The first issue that is to be decided by this Court is what effect, if any, would this delay have on the merits of the case. 7. To decide the first issue, recourse may be taken to Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment of Mohan Lal (supra), the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the ID Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh [Asstt. Eng., Rajasthan Development Corpn. v. Gitam Singh], that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed. 20. Now, if the facts of the present case are seen, the position that emerges is this: the workman worked as a work-charged employee for a period from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 (in all he worked for 286 days during his employment). The services of the workman were terminated with effect from 18.2.1986. The workman raised the industrial dispute in 1992 i.e. after 6 years of termination. The Labour Court did not keep in view admitted delay of 6 years in raising the industrial dispute by the workman. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable.4328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in restoring the award of the Labour Court whereby reinstatement was granted to the workman. Though, the compensation awarded by the Single Judge was too low and needed to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh (supra), held as under: "6. We shall at the outset deal with the issue of limitation. The respondent was retired compulsorily from service on 4.1.2003. Original Civil Suit No. 41 of 2010 was instituted in 2010. The trial Judge as well as the first appellate court were of the view that the suit was not barred by limitation since the representation of the respondent for the grant of the three selection grades was rejected on 18.1.2010. The first appellate court, while concurring with the trial Judge also noted that the "final request" made by the respondent-plaintiff on 18.1.2010 was rejected and hence the suit was within limitation. 7. The respondent waited for seven long years after his retirement to pursue a claim for the grant of selection grade. This was clearly beyond the residuary period of limitation of three years provided in Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. That apart, in the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shankar Lal Parmar, the Court has considered the ambit of the scheme for selection grade. This Court has held thus: "6. Another important and relevant clause in the said order for our perusal is Clause 7, which is also reproduced hereinbelow: 7. Selection grades in terms of this order shall be granted only to those employees whose record of service is satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the selection grade.' 7. Clause 7 makes it clear that only those employees would be entitled for grant of selection grades, whose service record has been satisfactory and are otherwise eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority but have not been able to get the same as there might not be any channel of promotion or for want of sanctioned posts in the cadre." 8. The Court held that in terms of Clause 7, only those employees whose service record has been satisfactory could be entitled to be granted selection grade. In this context, the Court held: "17. Clause 7 further makes it clear that only those/such employees would be entitled to be granted selection grade whose service record has been satisfactory. This implicitly shows that the person who has an untainted, unblemished, clean and unpolluted record in service would be treated on a higher pedestal than those who have either tainted, blemished, unclean or polluted record. This obviously appears to be a reasonable classification and is under the ambit and touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is neither any ambiguity nor any doubt in the same." 9. On the touchstone of the above principles, it is evident that the respondent had been subjected to several disciplinary proceedings and as many as 19 charge- sheets were issued against him which resulted in penalties of a varying nature. The service record of the respondent cannot be regarded as untainted or clean. 10. Ms Nidhi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that some of the penalties which were imposed on the respondent were without cumulative effect. The consequence of the withholding of increments without cumulative effect is that after the period prescribed, the respondent would be entitled to restoration of the original pay scale or the original pay. However, this does not obviate the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4329 position that the imposition of the penalty itself indicates that the service record of the employee was not satisfactory. Another submission which has been urged is that the penalties were of a minor nature. Assuming that to be so, it is evident that for the grant of selection grade, the respondent did not fulfil the requirements of a clean record of service. The grant of the selection grade is not a matter of right and was subject to the terms and conditions which were stipulated. The respondent failed to fulfil these terms and conditions. 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that both on the question of limitation as well as on merits, the respondent was not entitled to the relief which was sought. The suit instituted by the respondent resp seven years after he had demitted office was barred by limitation. That apart, the respondent failed to meet the basic requirements for the selection grade." (Emphasis supplied) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bichitrananda Behera (supra), after considering the erstwhile judgments of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, Union of India v. N. Murugesan, and Chairman, State Bank of India v. M.J. James, concluded that delay and laches are vital in service matters, and can be seen as acquiescence.” Reverting to the facts of present case as the cause of action arose to the workman on 30.06.1990 and raised industrial dispute in the year 2015, so reference was made on 09.11.2015, thereafter filed claim petition before this Tribunal on 25.01.2016 and during the pendency of case got retired so he is not entitled for any relief. So far as the reliance has been placed on behalf of claimant in respect to condonation of delay is considered in regard to which reliance has been paced on the judgement, mentioned hereinafter, the workman cannot derive any benefit as they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case; moreover, so far as the submission made by the claimant that he made a representation on 10.12.2004 and same was not decided till date, on the basis of the same the delay cannot be condoned in respect of the relief which is been prayed by him. AWARD For the foregoing reasons the workman is not entitled for any relief as per the Reference No. L-41012/42/2015- IR(B-I) dated: 09.11.2015 and the same is answered accordingly. Lucknow. Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer 09th April, 2025 नइ ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1005.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj बी सी सी एल izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas – सिं – नंबर 1, धनबाद ds iapkV ( / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y–20012/60/2006-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)] मगणकंदन.एन, ईप गनदेशक4330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025 S.O. 1005.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/06/2025 [No. L-20012/60/2006 – IR (CM-I)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director 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. 92/2006 Employer in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL, Koyla Bhavan, Dhanbad. AND. Their workman. Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey Presiding Officer Appearances: For the Employers :- Sri Manish Kumar Singh, Manager (IR) HQ (H.R.) For the workman. :- None. State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal Dated 30/05/2025 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-20012/60/2006-IR(CM-I) dated 29/09/2006, has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress for adjudication by this Tribunal: SCHEDULE ―Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the management of M/s. BCCL, Koyla Bhavan to regularise Sh. Sandip Banerjeen, Sailendra Nath Dutta, Nilesh Kumar, KallolBhatacharjee and Hridyanand Yadav to the post of Data Entry Operator in Tech. &Suprv. Grade-D is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?‖ 2. On receiving order no. L-20012/60/2006-IR(CM-I) dated 29/09/2006 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 92 of 2006 was registered on 01.11.2006 and thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses. 3. Even, after issuance of notice, none appeared from both sides though Sri Manish Kumar on 30.05.2025 appeared from the side of the employer but the workmen never appeared before the Tribunal since 01.11.2006. 4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpired that the workmen never appeared before this Tribunal for a period of 19 years which shows that the workmen have no interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to be dismissed. 7. Hence, ORDERED that this case is hereby dismissed 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4331 नइ ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1006.—vk|S ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj बी सी सी एल izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas – सिं – नंबर 1, धनबाद ds iapkV ( / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y–20012/251/2003- vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-I)] मगणकंदन.एन, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025 S.O. 1006.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/06/2025 [No. L-20012/251/2003 – IR (CM-I)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. 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. 23/2004 Employer in relation to the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL. AND. Their workman. Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey Presiding Officer Appearances: For the Employers :- Sri Aniket Sachan, Asst. Manager (Legal) For the workman. :- None. State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal Dated 30/05/2025 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-20012/251/2003-IR(C-I) dated 10/02/2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of North Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Executing Member, Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for adjudication by this Tribunal: SCHEDULE ―Whether the demand of the Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the management of BCCL, North Tisra Colliery to regularise Sri Ganga Ram Koiri in the post of Coal Reeder Breaker Operator in Cat.IV w.e.f. 18.10.94 is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?‖ 2. On receiving order no. L-20012/251/2003-IR(C-I) dated 10/02/2004 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 23 of 2004 was registered on 20.2.2004 and thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses. 3. Even, after issuance of notice, none appeared from both sides though Sri Aniket Sachan, Asst.4332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Manager on 30.05.2025 appeared from the side of the employer but the workman never appeared before the Tribunal since 20.02.2004. 4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpired that the workman never appeared before this Tribunal for a period of 21 years which shows that the workman has no interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to be dismissed. 7. Hence, ORDERED that this case is hereby dismissed 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 नइ ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1007.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj बी सी सी एल izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn ea s – सिं – नबं र 1, धनबाद ds iapkV ( / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. ,y–20012/61/2010- vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-I)] मगणकंदन.एन, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025 S.O. 1007.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/06/2025 [No. L-20012/61/2010 – IR (CM-I)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director 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. 16/2011 Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad AND. Their workman. Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey Presiding Officer Appearances: For the Employers :- Sri Chandra Kishore, Manager (Legal) For the workman. :- None. State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal Dated 30/05/2025 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-20012/61/2010-(IR(CM-I)) dated 16/03/2011 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for adjudication by this Tribunal:[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4333 SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of management of Kusunda Colliery of M/s BCCL in not rectifying the anomaly in fixation of wages in respect of S/Sri Raj Kumar Ray, Hari Barhai, Sarfuddin Mia, Kali Prasad Singh and Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma is fair and justified? to what relief the concerned workman are entitled to?‖ 2. On receiving order no. L-20012/61/2010-(IR(CM-I)) dated 16/03/2011 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 16 of 2011 was registered on 08.4.2011 and thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses. 3. Even, after issuance of notice, none appeared from both sides though Sri Chandra Prakash, Asst. Manager on 16.08.2022 appeared from the side of the employer but the workmen never appeared before the Tribunal since 08.04.2011. 4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpired that the workmen never appeared before this Tribunal for a period of 14 years which shows that the workmen have no interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to be dismissed. 7. Hence, ORDERED that this case is hereby dismissed 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 नइ ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1008.—vk|S ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj बी सी सी एल izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas – सिं – नंबर 1, धनबाद ds iapkV ( / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. -20012/53/2003- (सी.एम-I)] मगणकंदन.एन, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025 S.O. 1008.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/06/2025 [No. L-20012/53/2003 – IR (CM-I)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director 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. 77/2003 Employer in relation to the management of Jayrampur Colliery of M/s. BCCL. AND. Their workman.4334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey Presiding Officer Appearances: For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate. For the workman. :- None. State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal Dated 30/05/2025 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-20012/53/2003-IR(C-I) dated 18/03/2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of Jayrampur Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Joint General Secretary, Bahujan Mazdoor Union for adjudication by this Tribunal: SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of management of Jayrampur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri UpkarMallah, M/Loader from service w.e.f. 3.4.2000 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?‖ 2. On receiving order no. L-20012/53/2003-IR(C-I) dated 18/03/2003 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 77 of 2003 was registered on 06.10.2003 and thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses. 3. Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for management of BCCL and Sri R.R. Ram, Joint General Secretary of Union for the workman appeared before the courtand they also filed their respective W/S & rejoinders but later on Sri R.R. Ram, Joint General Secretary of the Bahujan Mazdoor Union, Dhanbad failed to appear before the Tribunal and notice was also issued to workman/union. 4. Again on 01.08.2023, Sri R.R. Ram appeared before the Tribunal and submitted that the concerned workman is not traceable and union was not interested to contest this case and prayed to close the same. The workman remained absent till date. 5. Today Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the employer is present but none appeared from the side of the workman/union. 6. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that the workman who is the aggrieved party has not appeared before this Tribunal since long and his union has already requested to close the case. This case is pending since 06/10/2003 and workman/union is not appearing before the Tribunal, so it is evident that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter and so this case is liable to be dismissed. 7. Hence, ORDERED that this case is hereby dismissed 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 नइ ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1009.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj बी सी सी एल izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a – सिं – नंबर 1, धनबाद ds iapkV ( / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. -20012/94/2010- (सी.एम-I)] मगणकंदन.एन, ईप गनदेशक[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4335 New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025 S.O. 1009.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/06/2025 [No. L-20012/94/2010 – IR (CM-I)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director 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. 30/2011 Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL, Kusunda, Dhanbad. AND. Their workman. Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey Presiding Officer Appearances: For the Employers :- Sri Ranjeet Kr. Jha, Legal Inspector, P.B. Area Sri Manish Kumar (Legal)HQ. For the workman. :- None. State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal Dated 30/05/2025 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-20012/94/2010-(IR(CM-I)) dated 13/18.05.2011, has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Branch Secretary, Coal Mines Engineering workers Association for adjudication by this Tribunal: SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of management of 10/12 Pits KB Colliery under P.B. Area of BCCL in not regularizing Sri Indra deo Mahato to the post of Foreman in Grade-C is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖ 2. On receiving order no. L-20012/94/2010-(IR(CM-I)) dated 13/18.05.2011 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 30 of 2011 was registered on 30.5.2011 and thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses. 3. Even, after issuance of notice, none appeared from both sides though Sri Ranjeet Kr. Jha, Legal Inspector, P.B. Area and Sri Manish Kumar (Legal)HQ on 30.05.2025 appeared from the side of the employer but the workman never appeared before the Tribunal since 30.05.2011. 4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpired that the workman never appeared before this Tribunal for a period of 14 years which shows that the workman has no interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to be dismissed. 7. Hence, ORDERED that this case is hereby dismissed 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 Officer4336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नइ ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1010.—vk|S ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj बी सी सी एल izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn eas – सिं – नंबर 1, धनबाद ds iapkV ( / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [सं. -20012/41/2020- (सी.एम-I)] मगणकंदन.एन, ईप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025 S.O. 1010.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/06/2025 [No. L-20012/41/2020 – IR (CM-I)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director 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. 34/2020 Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL. AND. Their workman. Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey Presiding Officer Appearances: For the Employers :- Sri S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate. For the workman. :- None. State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal Dated 28/05/2025 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-20012/41/2020-IR(CM-I) dated 23/09/2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Vice President, Jharkhand Janata Mazdoor Union for adjudication by this Tribunal: SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of management of Dhansar/Industry Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in not modifying the date of birth as 04.06.1962 as given in matriculation certificate in place of 04-06-1958 wrongly recorded in service record of Shri Jafar Ali Mia, in spite of repeated request i.e. 14.02.1982, 05.06.1990, 14.02.2002, 08.11.2008, 08.06.2015, 30.05.2018 and superannuated him on 30.06.2018 is appropriate, fair and legal? If not, what relief Shri Jafar Ali Mia is entitled to?‖ 2. On receiving order no. L-20012/41/2020-IR(CM-I) dated 23/09/2020 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 34 of 2020 was registered on 02.11.2020 and thereafter the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses. 3. Sri S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate for management of BCCL appeared before the court and filed his[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4337 authority letter whereas, previously Sri Pintu Mondal appeared from the side of the workman as Vice President of the Jharkhand Janata Mazdoor Union, Dhanbad but later on Sri Sadhu Sharan Prasad, General Secretary JJMU appeared on 08.12.2021 before the Court and filed a petition as well as notary affidavit of the workman along with his petition stating therein that the concerned workman namely Jafar Ali Mia has already superannuated from Dhansar Colliery under Kusunda Area on 30.06.2018 and requested to close the case as he is not interested to contest the same. 4. Today Sri S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate for the employer is present but none appeared from the side of the workman/union. 5. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that the workman who is the aggrieved party, has himself filed a petition dated 08.12.2021 with a prayer to close his case. As now he is not interested to contest this case, his prayer is allowed and accordingly this case is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and it is further ordered that ―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 नइ ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025 का.अ. 1011.— औद्योगगक गििाद ऄगधगनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण म,ें केन्द्रीय सरकार पटरयोजना गनदेशक, मसे स म लासनम एंड िुब्रो गलगमिेड कंस्ट्रक्शन गडिीजन, गिजाग िसे ल्स प्रोजक्े ि, गिशाखापत्तनम; श्री अइ. सीता राम (ईप-ठेकेदार), मसे स म लासनम एंड िुब्रो गलगमिेड कंस्ट्रक्शन गडिीजन, गिजाग िसे ल्स प्रोजक्े ि, गिशाखापत्तनम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और मिंासगचि, गिशाखा गसिी कॉन्द्ट्रैक्ि िकमस म यगू नयन (िीएनिीयसू ी) के बीच ऄनुबंध म ें गनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक ऄगधकरण- सिं-श्रम न्द्यायालय- िंदै राबाद पंचाि(संदभम संख्या 33/2016) को जैसा दक ऄनुलग्नक म ें ददखाया गया िं,ै प्रकागशत करती िं ै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉपी के साथ 03.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. एल –14011/02/2016- अइअर (डीय)ू ] ददलीप कुमार, ऄिर सगचि New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025 S.O. 1011.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. 33/2016) 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 the The Project Director, M/s. Larsen &Toubro Ltd. Construction Division, Vizag Vessels Project, Visakhapatnam; Sri I. Sita Ram (Sub-Contractor), M/s. Larsen &Toubro Ltd. Construction Division, Vizag Vessels Project, Visakhapatnam and General Secretary, Visakha City Contract Workers Union (TNTUC) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 03.06.2025. [No. L-14011/02/2016-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 13th day of May, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 33/2016 Between: General Secretary, Visakha City Contract Workers Union (TNTUC), D.No.37-6-48/1, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-530 008 ….. Petitioner/Union4338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] And 1. The Project Director, M/s. Larsen &Toubro Ltd. Construction Division, Vizag Vessels Project, C/o Ship Building Centre, Naval Base (PO) Visakhapatnam-530 014. 2. Sri I. Sita Ram (Sub-Contractor), M/s. Larsen &Toubro Ltd. Construction Division, Vizag Vessels Project, C/o Ship Building Centre, Naval Base (PO) Visakhapatnam-530 014. … Respondent s Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri I. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri G.Venkata Subba Raju, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 14011/02/2016-IR(DU) dated 11.4.2016 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. Larsen &Toubro Ltd. Construction Division, and their workman. The reference is, SCHEDULE Whether the action of management of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., L&T Construction Division Vizag Vessels Project, Visakhapatnam (Contractors of Ship Building Centre headed by Project Director, a unit of Navy (Defence unit) at Visakhapatnam) in terminating the services of 1) Sri Egala Pavan Kumar, 2) Sri Irri Niranjan, 3) Sri Paila Srinivasa Rao and 4) Sri Bora Suri Babu contract workers without any valid reason and without complying Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to? The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 33/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows: It is submitted that the claimant is a Registered Trade Union working for the wellbeing of the Contract Workers in Visakhapatnam. i) Sri Egala Pavan Kumar, ii) Sri Irri Niranjan, iii) Sri Paila Srinivasa Rao and iv) Sri Bora Suri Babu are the active members of the Claimant Union and also employees of the Respondent Management. Since the Respondent Management had not implemented some of the statutory provisions like Payment of Bonus and enrolment to ESI schemes, the claimant union agitated, raised the issue with the management as well as before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapalnam and compelled the management to comply with the[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4339 statutory provisions. It is submitted that due to that agitation the management bore grudge against the Claimant union and to victimise it's active members the Respondent management terminated the services of i) Sri Egala Pavan Kumar, ii) Sri Irri Niranjan, iii) Sri Paila Srinivasa Rao and iv) Sri Bora Suri Babu illegally without any misconduct or fault on the part of the four workers. It is submitted that without any prior notice or assigning any reasons the Respondent Management terminated the services of these four workers i.e., i) Sri Egala Pavan Kumar, ii) Sri Irri Niranjan, iii) Sri Paila Srinivasa Rao and iv) Sri Bora Suri Babu who were working with the Respondent Management since 2011-2012. The Respondent Management had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the four workers are seniors in their respective categories. The Respondent Management terminated the services of these Senior workers without any prior notice to the workers as well as to the appropriate Government, while continuing the services of the junior workers. Thus, the Respondent Management violated the Statutory Provision contained in Section 25F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. Further, it is submitted that in proof of the service of the four workers with the Respondent Management, the Claimant Union submitting herewith the Employees Provident Fund Statements and employment Identity Cards of the 3 workers Sri Irri Niranjan, Sri Paila Srinivasa Rao and Sri Bora Suri Babu. It is submitted that the action of the Respondent Management in terminating the services of the workers i) Sri Irri Niranjan, ii) Sri Paila Srinivasa Rao and iii) Sri Bora Suri Babu is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that all the three workers are entitled for reinstatement into service with full back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits. In view of the aforesaid submissions the Claimant prayed that to pass an award directing the Respondent Management to reinstate these three workers into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits and back wages etc.. 3. The petition filed by the claimants are neither just, nor proper and nor maintainable under Law. The claimants are put to strict proof of their right to file this petition and to claim the relief as prayed for. The allegations made in various paragraphs of the petition are all not true. The claimants are put to strict proof of the same and which are not specifically admitted herein in this counter by this respondent. It is submitted that the claimants are the employees of the respondent management is not correct. They are not engaged by the respondent management. So, there is no employer and employee relationship. It is submitted that the one B.Appala Naidu, who is said to be as General Secretary of Visakha City Contract Workers Union, (TNTUC) vide bearing Regd. No. 1466/95, is fake one, and he is neither elected nor selected as General Secretary of above said Union. Hence, he has no authority to represent the said union. Previously he cheated many contract workers and when this fact known to the said contract they questioned the above said B.Appala Naidu. To come out of workers, that dispute with workers, B. Appala Naidu has written a letter by stating that he is no way concerned with the workers and not to interfere in their matters further.4340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] It is submitted that the respondent management has given contract to one M/s. I. Sitaram, Visakhapatnam to complete one project work in Naval Defence, Visakhapatnam. The sub-contractor M/s. I. Sitaram has engaged about 53 persons to complete the Project. The same has been completed by the above said sub-contractor M/s. I. Sitaram. As and when the work was completed, the entire contract workers have completed their tenure and the Sub-Contractor has settled their salaries as full and final, to prove the same all workers' full and final settlement bonds have been filed along with this Counter. The contents of the Full and final settlement bonds may be read as part and parcel of this counter and these all documents clearly show that these claimants are contract workers of one M/s. I. Sitaram, to whom the project work was entrusted by the respondent management, hence, there is no direct nexus between these claimants and respondent management. Therefore, the allegations made in Para 2 of the statement of facts are not true. It is submitted that the question does not raise that the respondent management terminated the services of S/Sri Egala Pavan Kumar, Irri Niranjan, Paila Srinivasa Rao and Bora Suri Babu. In fact, these persons have not engaged by the respondent management. These persons are not employees of respondent management, if it is fact that the claimants are employees of respondent management, then the burden lies on them to prove that they are employees of respondent company. As per the above stated facts, as the claimants stated in Para 3 that none of four claimants have committed any fault, but without any prior notice and assigning any reasons the respondent management terminated the services of the above four workers, who are working with the respondent management since 2011 are false and far from truth. In fact, some piece of project work was entrusted to one M/s. I. Sitaram, who is sub-contractor to the respondent management. He appointed not only these three persons but that also about 50 persons have been engaged to complete the project. project work was completed, then the entire workers have been left after they have got salaries as full and final settlement. These three persons are also took money from the M/s. I Sitaram as full and final settlement, to prove the same those documents are also filing along with this counter, and the contents of the documents may be read as part and parcel of the counter. The claimants further stated in Para 4 of claim statement that the respondent management had not followed the procedure prescribed U/S 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 4 workers are seniors in their respective categories and the respondent management terminated the services of these senior workers without any prior notice to the workers as well as to the appropriate Govt., while continuing the service of junior workers are not true and correct, why because these claimants have no way concerned to respondent management. Respondent management has given so many sub-contracts to so many sub-contract companies to complete its vast main contract work. The sub-contract companies have engaged workers to complete their respective sub-contract works as and when the sub-contract works completed, there is no relation between respondent management and sub-contractors, as such one among sub-contractors by name M/s. I Sitaram, sub- contractor was appointed these claimants to complete its project work, as per the above stated facts there is no relation[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4341 between claimants and respondent management. Under these circumstances, they are not employees to the respondent management. So, as per the stated facts the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not at all apply to the facts of the case and also the claimants are not entitled to get relief as they prayed for in their claim statement thus, claim statement is totally misconceived, devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed in limini. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner Union filed written arguments. 5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following points emerge for determination:- I. Whether employer and employee relationship exists between the workmen and management of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Construction Division, Vizag Vessels Project Visakhapatnam? II. Whether the action of management of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., L&T Construction Division Vizag Vessels Project, Visakhapatnam (Contractors of Ship Building Centre headed by Project Director, a unit of Navy (Defence unit) at Visakhapatnam) in terminating the services of ) Sri Egala Pavan Kumar, ii) Sri Irri Niranjan, iii) Sri Paila Srinivasa Rao and iv) Sri Bora Suri Babu is legal and justified? III. To what relief if any they are entitled for? \ Findings:- 6. Point No.I :- Preliminary objection in the present industrial dispute is raised by the Respondent that there is no employer and employee relationship between the workmen herein and the Respondent M/s. Larsen and Turbo Ltd.. In this context, Respondent in his counter has contended that the workmen on whose behalf the claim statement has been filed by the claimants are not employees of the Respondent company. Further, it is contended that Respondent management has given contract to one Mr I. Sitaram R/o Visakhapatnam to complete one project work in Naval Defence, Visakhapatnam. The sub-contractor Sri I. Sitaram had engaged about 53 persons to complete the project. The same has been completed by the aforesaid sub-contractor Sri I Sitaram and after completion of contract work, the workers have completed their tenure and the sub-contractor has settled their salaries as full and final. Further, it is contended that to prove the final settlement of workmen, the documents have been filed along with the counter. Respondent contended that all these documents clearly shows that these claimants workmen are contract workers of one Sri I. Sitaram to whom the project work was entrusted by the Respondent management So there is no direct Nexus between these claimants and Respondent management and question of terminating the services of workmen S/Sri Egala Pavan Kumar, Irri Niranjan, Paila Srinivasa Rao and Bora Suri4342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Babu, does not arise. In fact, these persons have not been engaged by Respondent management and are not employees of the Respondent management. The burden of proof lies on workmen to prove that they are employees of Respondent company. 7. On the other hand, workmen in their claim statement has taken plea that Respondent management has not implemented some of the statutory provisions. The claimant union agitated raised the issue with the management as well as before the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central), Visakhapatnam and compelled the management to comply with the statutory provisions. Further, it is stated that the claimant is a registered trade union working for the well being of the contract workers in Visakhapatnam and Workman Sri Eegala Pavan Kumar, Shri I. Niranjan, Sri P. Srinivasa Rao and Sri Bora Suribabu are the active members of the claimant union and also employees of the Respondent Management. Further, it is stated that Respondent has terminated the services of these workers workmen in contravention of the provision of ID Act. These workmen has been engaged by the Respondent since 2011-2012. 8. After filing the counter and documents Respondent did not appear, therefore, case has been proceeded ex- parte against the Respondent. The workmen has produced oral their evidence as WW1, WW2 and WW3. It is settled law that even though case is proceeding ex-parte the court is duty bound to decide the matter on merits on the basis of appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is settled law that burden of proving employer and employee relationship initially rests upon the persons who asserts its existence. In the present case, the workmen has asserted that they are the employees of Respondent management, which the management has denied. Therefore, burden of proof rests upon workmen to give positive evidence in their favour and to discharge their initial burden that the Respondent has appointed the workmen for the work as its employee. In this context, the reference of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of "Workman of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. Vs State of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2004 SC 1639 is relevant wherein Hon’ble Court have held:- "47. It is a well - settled principle of law that the person who is set up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him. 48. In N.C. John Vs Secretary Thodupuha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers' Union and others the Kerala High Court held : "The burden of proof being on the workman Jai Prakash of 21 to establish the employer - employee relationship an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have proved employer-employee relationship." Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Babu Ram Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 247 (2018) Delhi Law Times 596 was pleased to observe :[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4343 "it is well settled principle of law that the person, who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. V. State of T.N. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 514 has approved the judgment of Kerala and Calcutta High Court, where the plea of the workman that he was employee of the company was denied by the company and it was held that it was not for the company to prove that he was not an employee. Para 48 to 50 of the said judgment reads as under : "In N.C. John v. Secy., Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers' Union & Ors, (1973 Lab IC 398) the Kerala High Court held : The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer employee relationship an adverse inference cannot bedrawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have proved employer employee relationship. In Swapan Das Gupta & Ors. v. The First Labour Court of W.B. (1976 Lab IC 202 (Cal)) it has been held : Where a person asserts that he was a workman of the company and it is denied by the company, it is for him to prove the fact. It is not for the company to prove that he was not an employee of the company but of some other person. The question whether the relationship between the parties is one of employer and employee is a pure question of fact and ordinarily the High Court while exercising its power of judicial review shall not interfere therewith unless the finding is manifestly or obviously erroneous or perverse." 19. In Ravi N. Tikoo v. Deputy Commissioner (S.W.) & Ors., 2006 II AD (DELHI) 560 our own Hon'ble High Court observed as under: "At this stage, it becomes necessary also to know that extent to which the workman is required to prove his case in the light of the absence of nontraverse by the management and lack of any defence before the industrial adjudicator. Such issue can be examined in the light of the provisions of Order 8 Rules 5 & 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principles of law laid down thereunder. Even if the respondent has not appeared before the court, the court has to exercise discretion as to the manner in which further proceedings should take place. The court would examine the allegations made by the claimant and the material placed on record, and if fully satisfied, would proceed to answer the reference in favour of the workman." "However, the basic principle being that where, a claimant comes to court, he must prove his case, cannot be whittled down even in a case, where, no respondent appears. The court having called upon claimant to lead its evidence would be required to look at the case set up by the claimant, which would include the pleadings and evidence in support and evaluate the same and be satisfied that the case set up by the claimant has been adequately established." "It is settled law that the party seeking a claim and adjudication has to prove its case before the court. Merely because, the respondent or the defendant has chosen to remain absent from the proceedings before the court or the tribunal, it does not follow that the consequence has to be a judgment or an order in favour of the claimant without any further proof of its contentions. A claim could be required to be proved by cogent and reliable evidence." Thus, in view of law laid down by Apex Court as discussed above, the workmen Petitioners must prove their case of employer-employee relationship as asserted in claim statement and can not be whittled down evidence in case where no Respondent appears, the workmen have to prove their case by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence. 9. Further, the question regarding onus of Degree of proof for a claim of employment of a Workman with the management was also examined in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. Ghemarabhai Harijibhai Rabari reported in 2005 (10) SCC 792, and therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that, onus of proof is on the claimant, namely the workman who claimed to have been employed by the management, however the degree of proof vary from case to case and if the workman had established a prima facie case, it would be responsibility of the management to rebut the same.4344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 10. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, as discussed above, we proceed to examine the evidence adduced by the workmen in support of their claim. The workman Sri P Srinivas Rao in his chief affidavit statement stated that he joined through Lotus Insulations and was paid through Lotus Insulations till 31st March 2012. Further he stated that he worked under the supervision and guidance of the L&T Engineers and officials. Further, witness states that M/s. Larsen &Toubro Ltd., Construction Division, Vizag Vessels Project, issued him photo identity card and enrolled him under ESI scheme and EPF scheme as their employee. After completion of subcontract of Lotus Insulations, M/s Larsen and Toubro Limited, Construction Division, Vizag Vessels Project, Shipbuilding centre issued him Photo identity card and gate pass showing him as worker under the sub-contractor Sri I. Sitaram. The sub contract is a camouflage arrangement to evade the statutory obligation. Only L&T Ltd., officials used to guide and control him in day to day duties. In support of his statement, Workman has filed Photocopy of ID card, stated to be issued by the M/s.L&T Ltd., Construction Division, Vizag production centre. The perusal of said ID card reveals that it was issued by the Respondent in the name of workman but in the column of Subcontractor, the name of Sri I. Sitaram is mentioned. Thus, it reflects from ID card that workman Sri P. Srinivasa Rao was employee of sub-contractor Sri I. Sitaram. Further, Ex.W2 is the EPF contribution statement and ESI of the Workman. But the workman Sri P. Srinivasa Rao has not filed any documents in evidence pertaining to his appointment letter or written agreement issued by the Respondent M/s. L&T Ltd., and pertaining to attendance registers, salary slip or leave records etc., in order to establish that the Respondent M/s.L&T Limited has appointed him as a fitter in their company. Rather the documents filed by the workman WW1 goes to show that he was engaged by the Respondent through sub- contractor Sri I.Sitaram. 11. Similarly, the other workman Sri Irri Niranjan has also stated in his chief statement, that he joined through Lotus Insulations and was paid through Lotus insulations and he worked under the supervision and guidance of the L&T engineers and officials. L&T Limited issued him Identity card and enrolled him under ESI scheme and EPF scheme as their employee. Further the witness stated that after completion of sub-contract of Lotus insulations, M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited, Construction Division issued him photo identity card and gate pass showing him as a worker under the sub-contractor Sri I. Sitaram. The Workman Sri Niranjan has filed photocopy of Ex.W5 Identity card, which goes to show that identity card was issued by the L&T and in the column of sub-contractor name Sri I. Sitaram is mentioned. This document is not going to establish that the Workman Sri Niranjan was employee of Respondent L & T Limited. Similarly, another workman Sri Bora Suribabu has also stated the in claim statement affidavit that that he joined through Lotus Insulations and was paid through Lotus insulations and he worked under[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4345 the supervision and guidance of the L&T engineers and officials. L&T Limited issued him Identity card and enrolled him under ESI scheme and EPF scheme as their employee. Further the witness stated that after completion of sub- contract of Lotus insulations, M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited, Construction Division issued him photo identity card and gate pass showing him as a worker under the sub-contractor Sri I. Sitaram. In documentary evidence workman has filed photocopy of identity card Ex.W8 issued by L&T in the name of the Workman Sri Bora Suri Babu. In the column of sub-contractor name of Sri I.Sitaram is mentioned. The workman Sri Irri Nirnajan and Sri Bora Suribabu also failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence in support of their assertion of employer employee relationship with Respondent. Thus, workmen failed to produce any document of appointment letter, attendance register, salary slips or leave record to establish employer employee relationship with Respondent. However, the 4th Workman Sri Eegala Pavan Kumar failed to file any order or documentary evidence. 12. Thus, from the perusal of above discussed oral and documentary evidence adduced by the workmen on record, it manifest that these workmen failed to produce any documentary evidence of appointment letter, attendance register, salary register or leave records in order to establish that they have been appointed by the Respondent management. Therefore, initial burden to prove the employer and employee relationship with the Respondent M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., is not a discharged by the Workmen. 13. On the other hand, Respondent has filed the documents in support of his contention made in the Counter. Respondent has filed documents :- Statement of full and final settlement of S/Sri Egala Pavan Kumar, Irri Niranjan, Paila Srinivasa Rao and Bora Suri Babu, Resignation letter and full and final settlement letter given by Sri Egala Pavan Kumar. The photocopy of Cheque of Rs.50,764/- remitted into the account of Sri Irri Niranajan, photocopy of Cheque of Rs.50,862/- remitted into the account of Sri Paila Srinivasa Rao and photocopy of cheque of Rs.50,998/- remitted into the account of Sri Bora Suri Babu and authorization letter given by Respondent in favour of T. Chall Dorai. From the perusal of these aforesaid documentary evidence it goes to show that the sub-contractor Sri I.Sitaram, Shipbuilding Centre,SBC Vessel Project Visakhapatnam has paid the wages amount to these workmen S/Sri E.Pavan Kumar, I. Niranjan, P. Srinivasa Rao and B. suri Babu as a full and final settlement of their claims for the period from 1.8.2012 to 18.11.2015. further, documents filed by the Respondent goes to show that these workmen has also been paid notice pay etc., that has been deposited through cheque by the sub-contractor Sri I Sitaram in the account of these workmen Sri P. Srinivasarao to a tune of Rs.50862/- through cheque dated 18.3.2016, to Sri I. Niranajan was paid Rs.50,764/- through cheque dated 18.3.2016, and Sri Bora Suri Babu was paid Rs.50,998/- through cheque dated 18.3.2016. These documents filed by the Respondent goes to show that these4346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2025/JYAISTHA 24, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workmen were engaged by the Sub- Contractor Sri I.Sitaram to work in the project of Respondent M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., and when the work of project was over, they have been paid their wages as per number of days of work and also paid notice pay by the sub-contractor Sri I. Sitaram. There is no documentary evidence on record to prove that either these Workmen were appointed by Respondent M/s.L & T Ltd., for the work or the Respondent has paid salary directly these workmen. Even the identity card issued by the Respondent bears the name of sub-contractor Sri I. Sitaram which goes to show that these workmen were engaged through sub-contractor Sri I. Sitaram in the project of Respondent and as soon as the work of project completed by sub-contractor, these workmen were also disengaged by the sub-contractor. Further, there is no evidence on record that when these identity cards were issued to the workmen and for which period it was issued. However, Learned Counsel for workmen strenuously argued that the Respondent management has remitted Provident Fund and Insurance amount in the name of workmen and they have filed documents Ex.W2, Ex.W3, Ex.W6, Ex.W7, Ex.W9 and Ex.W10 as a proof of employer employee relationship, therefore, on the basis of Ex.W2, Ex.W3, Ex.W6, Ex.W7, Ex.W9 and Ex.W10 the workmen are employees of Respondent. It is settled law that PF deposit slips can be a piece of evidence supporting an employer employee relationship, they are not conclusive proof on their own. The PF deposit slips are considered as circumstantial evidence along side other factors like attendance registers, salary records and appointment letter. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a case has stated that mere contribution to provident fund does not automatically establish the employer employee relationship. It can be considered in conjunction with other evidence. In the present case workmen has failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence like attendance registers, salary record and appointment letter. Therefore, the plea of the workmen that they are employees of Respondent Management is found not proved. 14. Therefore, in view of fore gone discussion I come to irresistible conclusion that the workmen herein Petitioners herein have utterly failed to establish the employer employee relationship with the Respondent management. This issue is decided against the workmen and in favour of the Respondent management. 15. Point No.II:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Point No.I, it is concluded that Petitioner workmen has failed to establish employer-employee relationship with the Respondent management therefore, that the termination of the workmen from service by the Respondent is not illegal. Therefore, this issue is decided against the workmen and in favour of Respondent. 16. Point No.III:- In view of the discussion and finding given at Points No. I and II, the workmen Petitioners herein have failed to establish employer-employee relationship with the Respondent management and their[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जून 14, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 24, 1947 4347 termination is not illegal. Thus, they are not entitled to any relief. Hence, claim statement/petition filed by workmen is found to be devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Therefore, this issue is answered accordingly. AWARD In view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Points No.I, II and III, Workmen failed to establish employer-employee relationship with the Respondent management. Therefore, the termination of workmen from services by Respondent is not illegal and hence, these workmen are not entitled to any relief as prayed for. The reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 13th day of May, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri P. Srinivass Rao NIL WW2: Sri Irri Niranjan WW3: Sri Bora Suribabu Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photostat copy of Photo ID card Ex.W2: Photostat copy of EPF statement Ex.W2-B: Photostat copy of temporary identity certificate Ex.W3: Photostat copy of ESI card Ex.W4: Photostat copy of merit certificate issued by Respondent Ex.W5: Photostat copy of Photo ID card Ex.W6: Photostat copy of EPF statement Ex.W6-B: Photostat copy of temporary identity certificate Ex.W7: Photostat copy of ESI card Ex.W8: Photostat copy of Photo ID card Ex.W9: Photostat copy of EPF statement Ex.W9-B: Photostat copy of temporary identity certificate Ex.W10: Photostat copy of ESI card 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.