Ved Prakash vs GM SBI on 6 February 2026

1. 4. At the time of termination of the services and refusing work there were many juniors working in the Bank. Few names of the juniors are Serveshri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ram Naresh Singh, Upendra Nath. There-fore the motion of the Bank is illegal in view of Section 25 G of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

2. 5. After termination of the services of the applicant the bank has appointed a number of new persons Few names are were appointed after the termination of the applicant are Servashri Anil Khare, D.K. Dulela, Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Mukesh Chandra, Ashok Misra, Prabhat Seth, Shyam Agarwal, Charu Shukla, Ravi Chandra Shukla , Awadesh Kumar Srivastava, Mridul Nigam, Viparna Bajpai, Girish Bajpai, Narendra Kumar Bajpai, Poonam Saxena, P.K. Sinha, Veeena Srivastava, Mohini Singh, Kalawati Joshi and Usha Pendey etc. But the bank has not given any chance to the applicant. The action of the bank is therefore against the provision of Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as such is illegal and unjust.

3. 6. The applicant met various time to the officers of the opposite party bank and requested them to provide work to the applicant but the just and legitimate request of the applicant has not been accepted by the opposite party.

4. 7. Seeing no other way the applicant requested the union to take up the matter with the opposite party bank, and to take suitable legal steps so that the applicant may get justice in the matter.

5. 8. Shri V.M. Shekheri, President, UP. Bank Employees' Federation took up the matter with the opposite party Bank in the year 1983. The employer first assured to take the applicant back in the service but linger on the matters as such Shri V. N. Shekheri ultimately filed applicant's case before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C)Kanpur along-with certain other similarly terminated employees in the year 1994. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Kanpur took up the matter in the conciliation as I.D. Case No. 7-(1-175-2843-30 of 86-E-2 and after due proceedings submitted failure report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of Indie, New Delhi. The Ministry, however, refused to refer the dispute for adjudication Vide order No. L-12012/671/86-D2(A) dated 1.7.1997.

6. 9. The union submitted a number of representations to the Ministry of Labour Government of India but all in Vain.

7. 10. Seeing no way the union filed a civil Misc. Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was numbered as C.M.W.P. 45884 of 1992 in which order of the Government refusing to refer the dispute of the applicant was challenged along with some other orders refusing to refer the dispute of some other similar employees.

8. 11. The Hon'ble High Court after hearing the petition decided favour of the applicant. In the meantime Shri V.N. Shekheri died and the applicant was not informed shout the development of the case. However the applicant obtained the copy of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court and submitted the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Kanpur who submitted his report to the *09/2/28*

Government of India who in term referred the present dispute to this Hon'ble Court for adjudication.

1. 12. The termination of the applicant is retrenchment. The employer has not paid notice pay and retrenchment compensation to the applicants as such the termination of the applicant is illegal and unjust.

2. 13. The employer section is also illegal and unjust in view of Section 25 G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 since Juniors were retained in the service and new hands have been appointed.

3. 14. The action of the employer is illegal, unjust and arbitrary by all means. The applicant is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages and other benefits.

4. 15. It is, therefore, respect fully prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to award the following relief to the applicant.

1. (i) The applicant be reinstated with continuity of service add full back Wages.

2. (ii) All other benefits be also awarded to the applicant.

3. (iii) Suitable cost be also awarded to the applicant.

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

1. 1. At the very out-set it is submitted that the reference itself is illegal and beyond the pre-scribed time as fixed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

2. 2. From the perusal of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45884 of 1992 passed on 12.03.1999 it emerges that the Hon'ble High Court had passed inter-alia, the following order :- "Let a mandamus do issue accordingly. In case reference is sought by individual workman once again within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order is obtained by the workman, Appellate Authority. Under Section 10 to reconsider the said question once again within a period of one month from the date of raising such dispute case."

Thus it is clear that the submission of the reference by the individual workman within two months from the date certified copy of the order is obtained by the Union was a sign-qua non. The order of the Hon'ble High Court nowhere directs that the reference can be sought within two months from the date of knowledge by the individual workman. The individual work-man is represented by U.P. Bank Employees Federation and none of the interested workman could take a plea that he/she does not/did not have the knowledge of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 12.03.1999. Assuming without admitting the contents of the workman from the bare perusal of the certified copy of the Hon'ble High Court it is evidently clear that the said application for the certified copy was applied on 12.10.2000 and was ready on 16.10.2000. It is further clear that the said certified copy was secured by the petitioner on 17.10.2000. Be it so, even assuming 06/12/26

without admitting, at the most or at the worst the petitioner could have filed the petition within two months thereafter i.e. up till 16.12 2000, but the reference before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner Central has been made only on 29.12 2000 i.e much after the period of two months. The petitioner had/has no right to reiterate the matter before this Hon'ble Court as she has not applied within time fixed by the Hon'ble High Court nor any condonation has been sought by the petitioner from the Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner is not entitled to rake-up the issue now at this juncture.

1. 3. Secondly, it is specifically mentioned that it is not a case of termination of service nor a case of retrenchment nor a case of unfair labour practices envisaged Under Section 2 (ra) of Industrial Dispute Act.

2. 4. The contents of para 1 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that Ved Prakash was employed in the Kaushalpuri Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on purely temporary basis for a period from 22.01.1983 to 11.04.1983. His of services stood ceased as a result of non-renewal contract of employment between the Employer and Workman and his employment ceased on the expiry of the fixed period.

3. 5. Manager did never at any time terminate his services nor retrenched him but his services were purely temporary and fixed time services. The letter of appointment-cum-termination was issued to the Employee workman. He accepted the contract knowing fully well the consequence of the fixed term, contract and on the expiry of period of 80 days since the contract was not renewed by the Management, it ceased and automatically and his services came to end.

4. 6. The workman did never worked for 240 days in the year. As once time opportunity, the bank has issued the news for publication in the various News-paper in the year 1987 even the personal letter was issued to the workman Ved Prakash but he did not apply for the appointment. It is pertinent to mention that Ved Prakash did not have the sufficient qualifications to have absolved by the Recruitment, Board. He was appointed purely as stop gap arrangement on the permanent employees having taken the leave and on the expiration of period of contract it ceased automatically. He has never been terminated and retrenched at any time but his services has ceased by nonrenewal of the contract of the employment.

5. 7. Section 25(H) of the Industrial Dispute Act has no application in the matter. The job of the petitioner was purely contractual. He had accepted the terms of his job with open eyes knowing fully well. The consequences. He is now estopped challenging it at this stage. He was never appointed against the regular vacancy nor he has ever worked against the regular permanent vacancy of post. It is asserted that one time opportunity was given to all the employees in the year 1987 to absolve and permanent service of the bank to all those ex-workman, who had worked in the temporary basis in the bank by giving advertisement in all leading Hindi and English News-paper in the country which was published on 6.7.87 in Hindustan Times, Recruitment proceedings laid down by the Bank were *[Handwritten signature]* 04.02.26

followed and the permanent service those ex-workman who had applied on the prescribed format within the time fixed therein.

1. 8. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the petition be dismissed in the interest of justice.

After that respondent filed some documents which is read as under:

1. 1. Copy of letter dated 28/03/2018 sent under provisions of RTI Act by the Bank.

2. 2. Copy of information dated 13/04/2018 received from BIC, Kanpur.

3. 3. Attested copy of bank's letter dated 11 June, 2018.

4. 4. Attested copy of letter dated 20 July, 2018 sent by BIC Limited.

After perusal of record it is mentioned to important here that on dated 24.01.2012 case is decided and held that claimant is not entitled to any relief pursuant to the present claim petition and reference is answered against him and in favour of the management.

A recall application is moved by applicant by hearing of both parties on date 29.10.2013 that award is record and further case was fixed argument, in between one application is moved by applicant on date 29.08.2016 to permit the file evidence, mentioning our illness. On date 19.04.2023 my predecessor is order is read as under:

Claimant side is absent on repeated loud calls.

*A.R. of O.P. side appears, O.P. side submits that the documents procured by O.P. by lawful means show that the claimant was engaged in the erstwhile British India Corporation Ltd. as its permanent employee. It is submitted by O.P. side that till now claimant side has not repeated the truthfulness of the aforesaid documents procured from the British India Corporation Ltd. through lawful means proceeding is fixed to 28.04.2023 for hearing.*

As per claim statement of applicant and reference order the main question is whether the applicant had been appointed in clerk in opposite party bank in February, 1981 against the permanent post of clerk and he work till 11.04.1993 and after that bank has refused work from 12.04.1983 and bank terminating his services which is illegal of section 25 g of the Industrial Dispute Act.

In our written statement stated that it is not a case of termination of service nor a case of retrenchment nor a case of unfair labour practices, that applicant is employed in the Kaushalpuri Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on purely temporary basis for a period of 22.01.1983 to 11.04.1983, his services stood ceased as result of nonrenewal contract between the Employer and Workman and his employment ceased on the expiry of the fixed period. And he knows to be well the consequence of fixed term contract and on the expiry of period of 80 days contract was not renewed by the management.

Now the question is whether the applicant as said in claim statement is employee of opposite party said that he is temporary employee as said in written statement.

26/02/26

The main question in this reference whether the applicant is employee as said in his claim statement.

Opposite party said that in our written statement that he is not employee.

Applicant has never file any evidence in support of our claim statement. By opposite party file documentary evidence which is availed from RTI Act, attested copy of bank's letter dated 11.06.2018 and attested copy of letter dated 20.07.2018 sent by BIC Ltd. on dated 08.12.2020 which is as follows:

**Leave position of Shri V.P. Srivastava, BIC HO during 2007 to 2012.**

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th colspan="3">From 01.04.2007 to 31.12.2007</th> </tr> <tr> <th>B/F – E/L</th> <th>S/L</th> <th>C/L</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>27.5 (2006)</td> <td>45</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>15.0</td> <td>+15</td> <td>NIL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>42.5</td> <td>60</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr>

<td>(-)1</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>27.5</td> <td>59</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th colspan="3">01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008</th> </tr> <tr> <td>B/F 27.5</td> <td>59</td> <td>NIL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>+15.0</td> <td>+15</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>42.5</td> <td>74</td> <td>(-)2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(-)4.0</td> <td>(-)4</td> <td>8 NIL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>38.5</td> <td>70</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>15.0 (encashed)</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>23.5 (Bal)</b></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr>

</tr> <tr> <td>B/F 23.5</td> <td>70</td> <td>NIL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>+15.0</td> <td>+15</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>38.5</td> <td>85</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>15.0 (encashed)</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>23.5 (Bal)</b></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th colspan="3">01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010</th> </tr> <tr> <td>B/F 23.5</td> <td>85</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>+15.0</td> <td>+15</td> <td>8 NIL</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

*Handwritten signature and date: 08/02/26*

<table border="1"> <tbody> <tr> <td>38.5</td> <td>100</td>

</tr> <tr> <td>(-) 15.0 (encashed)</td> <td>(-)5</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>23.5</b></td> <td><b>95 (Bal)</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" style="text-align: center;"><b>01.01.2011 to 01.12.2011</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>B/F 23.5</td> <td>95</td> <td>NIL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>+15.0</td> <td>+15</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>38.5</td> <td>110</td> <td>9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(-) 15.0 (encashed)</td> <td>(-) 4</td>

</tr> <tr> <td><b>23.5</b></td> <td><b>106 (Bal)</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" style="text-align: center;"><b>01.01.2012 to 01.12.2012</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>B/F 23.5</td> <td>106</td> <td>NIL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>+15.0</td> <td>+15</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>38.5</td> <td>121</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>15.0 (encashed)</td> <td>(-) 7</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>23.5</b></td> <td><b>114</b></td> <td><b>3 NIL</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Further opposite party filed some documents on 27.07.2018 which is availed from RTI Act.

The answer given by BIC Ltd. dated 13.04.2018 in answer of question said that:

1. (1) Shri Ved Prakash Srivastava, S/o Shri N.L. Srivastava is a bonafide employee of our Corporation and he was appointed in corporation on 01.01.1988 as Clerk.

Hence it is clear that claimant is employee of BIC Ltd since from 01.01.1998 as clerk his leave details has given also above, then how he said in between those period he is employee of stated in claim statement of said bank.

The claim statement is filed on 12.05.2004 and in several paras he says that he is employee of said bank and the termination was done by bank as above, but it is not establish by way of any documentary evidence that he is employee of said bank and he is terminated as above.

From documentary evidence of the opposite party which is mentioned above he is employee of BIC Ltd. from 01.01.1988 as Clerk.

After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he had not given any evidence. Hence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.

*(Signature)* 06/12/26

In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of 'NIL' award.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 06.02.2026

06.02.2026

Presiding Officer CGIT, Kanpur

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the award of the same will follow in due course of time.

Date: 06.02.2026

06.02.2026

Presiding Officer CGIT, Kanpur