Sh Anuj kumar Singh vs DGM SBI on 5 February 2026

1. 1. The applicant was employed as a messenger at the respondent State Bank on February 27, 1981. The applicant performed all the duties of a Class IV employee at the respondent bank. The department paid the applicant his full salary, allowances, and permissible benefits.

2. 2. The applicant has been working smoothly at the respondent establishment. The applicant's work has been good and satisfactory. The applicant has never given employees an opportunity to complain. The applicant has never been issued a charge sheet or warning.

3. 3. The employers sometimes paid the applicant based on the register and sometimes by voucher.

4. 4. The respondent establishment is a public sector establishment and should act as an ideal employer. However, there is exploitation of all kinds within the respondent establishment, such as paying less than the prescribed salary, not providing any benefits, not entering the employee's name in the 05/2/26

attendance register so that they cannot avail themselves of the benefits of regularization, arbitrarily dismissing employees at will, firing them for a few days and then hiring someone else in their place, then firing them and hiring a third person. This, then, constitutes work exploitation and unfair labor practices of every kind.

1. 5. After voices were raised and protests were held against this type of exploitation and unfair labour practices, the employers invited applications in 1989 to provide permanent appointment to the old employees. The applicant also submitted an application and appeared for the interview.

2. 6. The applicant passed with good marks. Instead of giving the applicant a permanent appointment, his name was kept on the waiting list. The applicant met the employers repeatedly and requested that the applicant be given a permanent job. The employers assured that the applicant would be given a permanent appointment soon.

3. 7. The employers have not yet provided any written notice to any employee regarding their success or failure in the interview, nor have they published or shown the list of successful employees to anyone. This clearly demonstrates that the employers are acting in an unfair manner, with the intention of deceiving and maliciously engaging the employees.

4. 8. The applicant was not given a permanent position despite clear assurances, even though the applicant was a statutory competent authority. Instead of providing permanent employment, the employers employed the applicant temporarily in the canteen and the payroll section until 24-9-97, and terminated his employment on 25-9-99. The applicant pleaded for employment in numerous ways, but the employers ignored his requests and refused to provide him with any work.

5. 9. The applicant's name is listed on the waiting list for permanent employment, but instead of offering permanent employment, the employers are now withholding employment and are not providing any written assurances. The employer is employing several employees junior to the applicant. The employer's action is contrary to Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is therefore illegal.

6. 10. The applicant worked continuously from 1981 to 1997, therefore not giving work to the applicant is against Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, it is illegal. The employers have removed the applicant from the job without notice and without paying severance compensation, therefore, the removal from the job is illegal.

7. 11. The applicant kept meeting the employers and kept demanding permanent employment. Initially, the employers kept giving clear assurances that the applicant would be given permanent employment, but later the employers started telling the applicant that he would no longer be given work. However, instead of giving work to the applicant, the employers hired other new people and are giving them equal work.

8. 12. From 1981 to 1997 the employers kept assuring the applicant that he would be given a permanent appointment, hence the applicant's name was on the waiting list, but now the employers are refusing to give him work. The applicant is a citizen of this country and the respondent is a public establishment of the Government of India, which should act as an ideal employer, but crossing the limits of exploitation, after so many days they are saying that the appointment will not be given, thus the employers are playing with the life of the applicant.

- 13. Numerous junior employees are employed, but the applicant is not being given work. This action by the employers is contrary to Section 25G of the Act and is therefore illegal. The applicant is entitled to be retained.

- 14. The applicant has worked continuously for more than 240 days in each year at the respondent establishment and is therefore entitled to the benefits and protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer has not complied with the above provisions and hence the applicant's dismissal is illegal.

- 15. Therefore, it is humbly requested that the applicant be granted the following benefits/compensation:

- 1. The applicant be reinstated with all the benefits of an uninterrupted job.

- 2. The applicant be provided with full sitting salary, all permissible benefits, all allowances, and other benefits as appropriate.

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

- 1. The claimant had raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur under Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that he is a retrenched employee and he should be re-employed, whereas in the schedule given by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under reference dated 14.09.2006, it has been mentioned that the service of the claimant has been terminated from 25.09.97 and thereafter he will not be re-employed and new recruitment will be done, which is contradictory and on this basis the claimant is not entitled to get any benefit from this Hon'ble Court.

- 2. There is a process for appointment in the subordinate category in the State Bank of India and only the person selected through the process is given appointment.

- 3. The provisions of Section 25(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to the said dispute as the claimant has not worked for 240 days or more in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kanpur in the 12 calendar months prior to 25.09.97. The claimant is not entitled to any benefit from this Hon'ble Court in the light of the following decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad:

- a. 2004 L.I.C. 3458 Allahabad High Court (B) U.P. State Electricity Board V. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1), Kanpur and others. The initial burden was on the workman to prove that he had actually worked for 240 days in a year.

- b. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17609/1985 Allahabad High Court The Chief General Manager V. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Central Govt., Kanpur & another. There was no question of violation of section 25 (F) of I.D. Act, as respondent no.2 had not worked for 240 days. He had worked only for 89 days.

- 4. The claimant was employed in State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kanpur on temporary basis for only 90 days from June 1997 to September 1997 on emergency requirement without any sanctioned post and after this period when he was retrenched or not re-employed, he did not make any written complaint to the bank during the relevant period, which clearly shows that he was aware that he was being employed to fulfil the requirement.

*[Handwritten signature and date: 05/2/26]*

1. 5. The statement in paragraph 2 of the claimant's claim is incorrect and therefore rejected. It is necessary to state here that charge sheets, etc., are issued to permanent employees.

2. 6. The statement in paragraph 3 of the claimant's claim is incorrect and therefore rejected. This has been clearly answered in the previous paragraph of the written statement.

3. 7. The statement in paragraph 4 of the claimant's claim is incorrect and therefore rejected. The statement of unfair labor practice has been mentioned in the presentation.

4. 8. The statements in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the claimant's claim are not maintainable under reference. It is important to note here that agreements were reached between the State Bank of India and the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation on November 17, 1987, July 16, 1988, October 27, 1988, January 9, 1991, June 9, 1995, and July 30, 1996, regarding the permanent employment of temporary/daily wage workers. The claimant neither applied under these agreements nor was he interviewed. Therefore, there is no question of the claimant's name being on the waiting list, nor does the question of bank officials giving assurances to the claimant arise.

5. 9. Paragraph 9 of the claimant's claim merely admits that he was temporarily employed at the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kanpur, on a casual basis until 24.09.97. The remaining facts are incorrect and therefore rejected. The claimant did not submit any application to the bank regarding his alleged retrenchment on 25.09.97, which clearly indicates that he was aware that he was being employed to meet a casual requirement. It is important to clarify that he was not employed from 25.09.97, when the requirement ceased.

6. 10. The statement in Paragraph 10 of the claimant's claim is incorrect and therefore rejected. The claimant was the only casual employee at the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kanpur, during the relevant period. The provisions of Section 25(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are not applicable to the said dispute.

7. 11. The statement in paragraph 11 of the claimant's claim is false and therefore rejected. The burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove that he has worked with the bank from 1981 to 1997 and that he has not been retrenched. The provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are not applicable to the said dispute.

8. 12. The statements in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the claimant's claim are merely repetitions of the questions already clearly answered in the preceding paragraphs of the written statement. It is necessary to clarify here that since the claimant was never employed by the bank, no question of retrenchment arises.

9. 13. Therefore, it is prayed that in the light of the paragraphs mentioned in the written statement, the award be passed against the plaintiff and in favour of the bank.

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

- • Original telegram dated 21.06.1997.

- • Original appointment letter dated 24.06.1997.

- • D.G.M. letter no. DGM/PER/487 dated 06.08.1997.

- • D.G.M. letter no. DGM/PER/402 dated 17.07.1997.

In rebuttal respondent filed some documents which is read as under:

1. 1. Copy of Work Certificate dated 28.7.89

2. 2. Copy of Claim before Assistant Labor Commissioner Central, Kanpur

3. 3. Original Copy of Written Statement Assistant Labor Commissioner Central, Kanpur

4. 4. Original Copy of Bank Letter dated 8.11.2004

5. 5. Copy of Bank Letter dated 18.11.2004.

As per reference the main question is Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Anuj Kumar Singh w.e.f. 25^th September, 1997 and thereafter not considering his case for re-employment while employing fresh hands, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

By filing claim statement claimant is requested that he was employed as Messenger in State Bank of India from 27.02.1981 and do all work of the Bank and get all benefits, salary and allowances etc. His work is satisfactory never any complain about his work and no any charge sheet has given to him. Employer was paid to him by way of vouchers. The opposite party after arising of hesitation to give permanent appointment, application is invited in 1989 and he applied and give interview and passed but his name was kept in waiting list. He always requested to opposite party but opposite party not given to him permanent appointment and on 25.09.1997 his services were terminated.

Against that opposite party stated that claimant has never worked as per provision of Industrial Dispute Act section 25 B and in a year never worked 240 days in Main Branch Kanpur. He was appointed temporary basis from June 1997 to September 1997 only for 90 days. Hence the provision of section 25 F and 25 B is not applicable because claimant is not retrenched employee.

Para 5,6 and 7 which is mentioned in claim statement is not mandatory as per Above compromise which is given in para 13 he is never applied and never interview is taken and there is no question of his name in waiting list and he never employed in bank as requested in our claim statement.

Now deciding, this reference the evidence of parties are important as per documentary evidence applicant filed by paper number 14 which is mentioned to necessary to here one paper is telegram and in this telegram is mentioned that:

अनुज कुमार सिंह पुत्र श्री अर्जुन सिंह द्वारा श्री बुधन सिंह म. न. 333 नानकारी आई आई टी कानपुर बैंक अस्थायी रूप से कुछ दिनों के लिए मैसेंजर / वाटर बॉय का कार्य करने हेतु इच्छुक होने पर तुरंत भारतीय स्टेट बैंक कानपुर मुख्य शाखा से 24 जून पूर्व संपर्क करे।

And next paper was appointment of temporary Messenger/Water boy in this paper is mentioned here that:

We refer to your letter No.KAN/P&HRD/1062 dated the 11th July 1997. In terms of our letter No.DGM/PER/293 06 5.6.97. vide which we had requested you to release name(s) of candidates, we had stated that we are seeking LHO's post-facto sanction for our action of appointing temporary waterboys; a copy of our Note submitted to LHO was also shared with you. There is this no mis-representation of factual position. It is true that LHO have not approved of our action so far. We have, however, again taken up the matter with LHO. Last communication addressed by us to LHO vide our letter of DGM/PER/402 dated 17.7.97, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference.

By paper number 6 bank has submitted five documents which are stated that:

1. 1. Copy of Work Certificate dated 28.7.89

2. 2. Copy of Claim before Assistant Labor Commissioner Central, Kanpur

3. 3. Original Copy of Written Statement Assistant Labor Commissioner Central, Kanpur

4. 4. Original Copy of Bank Letter dated 8.11.2004

5. 5. Copy of Bank Letter dated 18.11.2004.

In our oral evidence/chief, he support our version of claim statement is stated that:

I had been working at the State Bank of India since February 27, 1981, as a messenger. My full monthly salary was paid. My work at the bank was excellent. Our attendance was recorded at the bank, and we received our pay sometimes from the register and sometimes from a voucher. My interview took place in 1989. My name was on the waiting list, and I continued to meet with officials to request regularization, but I was not appointed. On June 24, 1997, I was appointed to the bank's main branch. I received an appointment certificate from the bank before my appointment. I worked there until September 24, 1997, and my service was terminated on September 25, 1997. I received no notice or severance pay before being fired. I had worked for 240 days. In our cross-examination he said that he was temporarily employed in Kalyanpur. After looking at paper number 6/2, we told that we had worked as a temporary messenger for 85 days from 02.04.1981 to 22.05.1981. We had worked in 1981 but had not received an appointment letter. An interview letter was issued for the interview, but the interview letter was not filed in the file. The defendant side asked that in the telegram that was filed, it is written that you have been called to the bank for a few days for the post of messenger or water boy, which is in paper number 14/3. Hearing this, the plaintiff said that what is written is correct.

Furthermore, the defendant side asked that between June 97 and September 97, you were temporarily employed for a total of 90 days for a limited period of 30 days each. Hearing this, the plaintiff said that this is correct. Then the defendant asked whether it was true that I had not worked continuously for 240 days in the 12 calendar months before 25/9/1997. On hearing this plaintiff said that they made me wait for two-four days but I had worked continuously in the bank.

It is written in the A.L.C. claim that employees have been appointed after me but their names have not been opened. I have not submitted the proof of attendance and salary payment because it is with the department. I had not made any written application for regularisation and I had received the bonus from the bank. The bank had not published any advertisement.

05/2/26

As per the claim statement and the examination-in-chief, the applicant has stated that he was appointed in the respondent bank to the post of Messenger. He also admitted in paragraph 3 of the claim statement that he was paid either through the register or by way of vouchers.

The opposite party, in its written statement, has stated that the claimant was never employed as a permanent employee of the bank. According to the management, he was engaged only as a casual employee as and when the need arose.

The documentary evidence on record shows that the applicant worked during the following periods:

- • 24.06.1997 to 23.07.1997

- • 24.07.1997 to 22.08.1997

- • 26.08.1997 to 24.09.1997

Thus, the total period of his engagement comes to **90 days only**.

The cross-examination of the applicant is important. In cross-examination, the applicant stated that he had worked as a Messenger since 27.02.1981. He further stated that before joining he had received an appointment letter and that he worked in the bank until 24.09.1997 and that his services were terminated on 25.09.1997.

However, the documents filed by the claimant himself contradict this claim. One of the documents filed by him is a **telegram**, which clearly indicates that he was called for a **temporary appointment**. Another document also shows that the appointment was purely temporary and created only to meet a casual requirement.

In this context, the bank has also filed documents marked as **Paper No. 6**, which clearly show that the applicant worked during the following periods:

- • 24.06.1997 to 23.07.1997

- • 24.07.1997 to 22.08.1997

- • 26.08.1997 to 24.09.1997

Thus, it is clear that he worked for **only 90 days**.

Further, in paragraph 9 of the said document it is specifically mentioned that the applicant worked as a temporary employee until 24.09.1997, and the document bears his signature. Hence, it is admitted by the applicant that he worked only as a temporary employee.

Another document filed by the bank, marked as **Paper No. 6/15**, also clearly mentions that the applicant was engaged as a temporary employee and that he worked only for the above-mentioned period of **90 days**.

In his examination-in-chief, the applicant stated that he had worked for **240 days**, but he failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of this claim.

The cross-examination further reveals that the applicant had earlier worked as a temporary messenger from **02.04.1981 to 22.05.1981**, which amounts to only **85 days**. This is an admission by the applicant that he worked as a temporary messenger for only 85 days during that period. He also admitted that he had not received any appointment letter at that time.

In his examination-in-chief he stated that he had received an appointment letter, which clearly creates a contradiction with his statement made during cross-examination.

*05/2/26*

The applicant also admitted during cross-examination that he had worked in the year 1981 and the document marked as **Paper No. 6/2**, which was produced by the opposite party, is correct. Therefore, it is clear that he admitted the facts mentioned in Paper No. 6/2.

He further admitted during cross-examination that the telegram produced on record was correct. When the opposite party asked him whether the letter specifically stated that he had been called for a temporary post and that he would have no right to claim future employment, he admitted that the contents of the letter were correct. Thus, the applicant himself admitted that he was employed only as a temporary employee.

The applicant also admitted his signatures on documents **Paper No. 6/3 to 6/6**. He further admitted that he was employed temporarily for **90 days**.

When he was asked whether he had worked continuously for **240 days in a year**, he replied that although he worked in the bank, the management sometimes did not give him work for two or four days. He also admitted during cross-examination that **no advertisement for recruitment was issued by the bank**. Lastly, he admitted that he had also worked in the **canteen**.

From the side of the opposite party, **M.W.-1 Sunil Kumar** was examined. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the bank follows a prescribed recruitment process for the appointment of subordinate staff.

According to him, candidates who are recruited through this process are issued appointment letters and are also entitled to various benefits in addition to salary, such as **leave fare concession (LFC), leave encashment, medical benefits, provident fund, pension, etc.**

He further stated that **Anuj Kumar Singh** did not join the bank through the prescribed recruitment process in June 1997 and that he had not worked continuously for **240 days in the twelve calendar months preceding September 1997**.

He also stated that no temporary employee had been employed in the bank before Anuj Kumar Singh and denied the claim that the claimant had applied for a temporary position in 1989.

He further stated that the claimant worked as a temporary employee for **30-day intervals up to 24.09.1997**, and that documents **Paper No. 6/3 to 6/6** had been filed by the department in this regard.

He also denied that any new recruitment had been made after the alleged termination of the claimant. He further stated that the claimant had never submitted any letter requesting reinstatement and that his services automatically came to an end after the expiry of the fixed term.

As per provision of section 25B of ID Act is that:

**[25B. Definition of continuous service**

*For the purposes of this Chapter,*

*(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a*

*05/7/26*

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

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

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

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

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

Section 25B of the **Industrial Disputes Act, 1947** defines **continuous service**. As per the said provision, a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service for one year if he has actually worked for **not less than 240 days during the preceding twelve months**.

In the present case, the applicant has failed to prove that he worked for **240 days** as required under Section 25B of the Act. The evidence on record, including the admissions made during cross-examination and the documents filed by both parties, clearly show that the applicant never worked for the required period.

Applicant said in our claim statement, in Para 17 because he worked more than 240 days in every year hence he is entitled to get benefits of section 25 F. In section 25 F as:

**25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen**

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and *[Handwritten signature and date: 05/2/26]*

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate government [for such authority as may be specified by the appropriate government by notification in the Official Gazette]

The definition of retrenchment is given in section 2 oo:

[(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or As per above provision it is necessary that he must be employee of opposite party organisation and it is also mandatory who had been continuous in service for not less than one year under the employer shall be retrenched by the employer but applicant is never worked as per provision of section 25 F because he never worked in opposite party organisation hence there is no any question of get benefits under section 25 F of ID Act.

It is also mandatory in ID Act for retrenchment that has been given in above provision which is mentioned by me that he employee, the definition of employee is given in ID Act under section 25 G as:

**5G. Procedure for retrenchment**

Where any workman in an industrial establishment who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.

In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the applicant worked only as a **temporary employee** for a limited period and that his appointment was not made in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure of the bank.

The applicant has also failed to produce any appointment letter, interview letter, or waiting list showing that he was selected for permanent employment in the respondent bank.

Accordingly, the applicant has failed to establish his claim.

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

Reference is answered accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 05.02.2026

Presiding Officer CGIT, Kanpur 05/02/2026

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: 05.02.2026

Presiding Officer CGIT, Kanpur 05/02/2026