Sh. Balram vs State Bank of India on 30 June 2025

1. 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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/62/2014-IR(B-I) dated 31.12.2014 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of State Bank of India and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the management of SBI is wrong in denying the continuation of Sri Balram’s service and done against the provisions of law? If so, what remedies lies with the workman and what specific steps should be taken by the SBI management to reinstate him with specific benefits?”

After receiving the said reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Both the management and the claimant had appeared. Claimant had filed the claim statement stating that he did the work with the respondent from 01.01.1999 till 04.06.2014 at the temporary work of cleaning at the rate of Rs. 135/- per day. He did the work with diligently and honestly and did not give any chance to the management for any complaint. On 04.06.2014, respondent had terminated the services of the workman without any cause. Correspondents have been made on different date but, respondent had not given any satisfactory answer nor was he reinstated. Hence, he filed this claim.

2. Respondent had appeared and filed the written statement. Respondent submits that claimant is a temporary sweeper for sweeping and cleaning the toilets in the branch premises. The initial entry of engagement of claimant was unauthorized and was not against any sanctioned vacancy. Considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, government make temporary engagement/engages workers on daily wages. Claimant accepted his engagement as daily wager/temporary employee at his own violation with open eyes. Claimant never worked for 240 days in any year. No cause of action accrued to him. Claim of the regularization has not been espoused by the substantial number of workmen of the Bank. He submits that claim of the claimant be dismissed.

3. Rejoinder has been filed by the claimant, denying the averment made by management in his written statement and affirmed the facts made in his claim statement.

4. It is also important to mention here that vide order dated 09.01.2023, this Tribunal had passed the award in favour of the claimant directing the management to reinstate the claimant as a part time Sweeper of the bank and pay daily wage as per the government notification and pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. However, on the application of the management, the award was set-aside and management was given an opportunity to lead its evidence.

5. After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 07.12.2015, following issues have been framed:

(i) Whether the management of SBI is wrong in denying the continuation of Sh. Balram’s service and done against the provision of law? If so its effect?

(ii) If so what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date and what steps should be taken by the SBI management to reinstate him with specific benefits?

6. In order to substantiate his claim, claimant has filed the affidavit affirming the averment made in the claim statement. He has relied upon the thirteen documents which are marked as Ex. WW1/1 to WW1/16:

(I) Ex. WW1/1 is the application filed by the claimant before Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), Dehradun. (II) Ex. WW1/2 is the copy of the affidavit of evidence of filed by the claimant before Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), Dehradun.

(III) Ex. WW1/3 shows that the claimant Balram was engaged as a Safaikaramchari on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.04.1999. (IV) Ex. WW1/4 is the paper cutting of an advertisement published on behalf of SBI advertising the posts for the safaikaramcharis on daily wage basis. (V) Ex. WW1/5 is a correspondence made by the Branch Manager of Basant Vihar Branch to the regional manager. (VI) Ex. WW1/6, Ex. WW1/7, Ex. WW1/8 & Ex. WW1/9 are the documents relating to regularization of the service of part time sweepers working in the bank. (VII) Ex. WW1/10 is the copy of letter sent by Rajya Safai Karamchari Aayog to the Bank regarding regularization of the claimant. (VIII) Ex. WW1/11 is the letter sent by claimant to the bank. (IX) Ex. WW1/12 is the letter sent by the claimant to Chief Secretary, Safai Karamchari Aayog, Dehradun. (X) Ex. WW1/13 is the letter sent by the Advocate Sh. Rajesh Devliyal to the Bank along with documents (Colly.-31 pages) (XI) Ex. WW1/14 is the copy of conciliation proceeding dated 25.08.2014. (XII) Ex. WW1/15 is the copy of letter dated 23.06.2014 (Colly.- 2 pages). (XIII) Ex. WW1/16 is the photocopy of letter sent by the workman to the Bank regarding payment for 25 days for the month of January.

7. In rebuttal, management has also examined one witness affirming the averment made in the W.S. Management witness has stated that the claimant was engaged intermittently as a Sweeper according to exigency as a temporary Sweeper for sweeping and cleaning of the toilets in the Bank premises. He was never appointed as permanent part time messenger or against permanent and regular vacancy. Therefore, there is no question of his regularization arises. He had relied upon the copy of the detail of the wages paid of the daily basis to the workman.

8. Counsel of the workman has argued, stating that management witness in cross-examination has admitted that Ex. WW1/7 i.e. letter written by the Branch Manager to the Assistant General Manager, Dehradun wherein the recommendation was made for regularization of the claimant along with two other persons and he submitted that workman has been continuously working since 1999 up to 2014. He further submitted that in Ex. WW1/5 where the Branch Manager has also written a letter addressed to the Regional Manager wherein he has stated that the branch was opened on 29.01.1999 and there was no subordinate staff posted at the branch since its inception and there are three boys working as fulltime daily wages since inception of the branch who are used to do for messenger work. He further submitted that he has also placed on record, details of the payment through cheques made to Balram from 2009 to March 2014. He submitted that all the evidences are unrebutted and uncontroverted. Respondent had not denied that the claimant had never worked.

9. Per contra, respondent argument revolves around the fact that the claimant is a daily wager as it has been admitted by him in the claim statement as well as his evidence and no right has been accrued in favour of the claimant being a daily wager. As and when, the service of the workman is required, he was called and accordingly wages were paid.

10. The management further relied on the judgment Of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 10.04.2006 in State of Karnataka vs.

Uma Devi and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999, wherein back door entry into public employment was specifically barred.

11. I have heard the argument by both the parties, perused the record and analyzed the evidence. Argument of the counsel for the management that the judgment of Uma Devi passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 10.04.2006 is applicable in the present case wherein the backdoor entry into public employment was specifically barred is not tenable because firstly, it has not been given in the contest of the industrial law. Secondly, in the recent judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024), the court explicitly held that:

The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ cannot be disregarded when workers have performed perennial duties under the direct supervision of the employer... Uma Devi cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative employment practices that persist for years without legitimate recruitment processes.

12. Now, come to the issue no. 1, “whether the management of SBI is wrong and denying the continuation of Sh. Balram’s service and done against the provisions of law”. Workman has relied upon the documents as Ex. WW1/5, WW1/6, WW1/7, WW1/8 and WW1/9 in order to prove that he was the employee since 1999. The contents of documents Ex. WW1/5, WW1/6 & WW1/7 are required to be produced and pasted herein:

13. The document Ex. WW1/5 stated that the branch was opened on 29.01.1999 as PBB branch and there was no subordinate staff posted at the branch. There were three boys working as fulltime daily wages since inception of the branch who used for messengerial work, canteen and sweeping of the branch. The above said letter has been addressed to the Regional Manager by the concerned Branch Manager. The document Ex. WW1/6 supports the fact that there were three employees working there. The document Ex. WW1/7 states the name of the three workers including the workman who was working since long as daily wager employee. Even, Ex. WW1/9 also mentioned the name of the claimant working as Sweeper at the rate of Rs. 135/- per day from 01.04.1999.

Therefore, the contention of the management that the workman has not been working there since 01.04.1999 is wrong.

14. Management denied that the workman has not been working in the bank since 01.04.1999. It does not mean that he did not work in the bank. From the preponderance of various documents placed on record reveals that the workman has been doing the work since 1999 which was perennial in nature. Continuously employing the workman on casual basis amount to an unfair labour practice and it cannot be allowed.

15. In these circumstances discussed above, it has been held that the management of the SBI is wrong in denying the continuation of Sh. Balram’s service and done against the condition prescribed U/s 25-F of the I.D Act while discontinuing his services as it has not given one month notice or in lieu of the notice pay and retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service. Hence, issue no. 1 goes in favor of the workman and against the management.

16. Now, come to the issue no. 2, “If so what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date and what steps should be taken by the SBI management to reinstate him with specific benefits”. As a general rule when his termination is declared illegal, the appropriate relief is reinstatement with full back wages.

17. In the present case, workman did the job of sweeper/messenger for 15 years. Therefore, the reinstatement with full back wages is only option available to be followed. Hence, management is directed to reinstate the workman in class 4th service of the bank as Sweeper or whatsoever name it would have to be given. So far so, the regard of the back wages is concerned instead of computing the back wages and retrenchment compensation, management bank is directed to pay the consolidated amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of the back wages and retrenchment compensation. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the I.D Act, 1947.

ATUL KUMAR GARG Date: 30.06.2025 Presiding Officer.

CGIT-cum- Labour Court-II