Karnataka High Court
WP/11835/2021 of MR MOHAMMED SALAHUDDIN Vs THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER III on 7 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:34064-DB WP No. 11835 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 11835 OF 2021 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR MOHAMMED SALAHUDDIN S/O LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 11835 OF 2021 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
MR MOHAMMED SALAHUDDIN
S/O LATE ABDUL GANI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT KEREBILACHI POST
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577218
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISHA N R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER III
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE No.6,
199, MANDIPET,
DIST DAVANAGERE-577001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH N., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN C.R.No.33/2010 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR AT BENGALURU, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B
K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 11.06.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short 'the CGIT') in C.R.No.33/2010.
2. The appellant workman was working in State Bank of Mysore presently State Bank of India as an Attender/Peon w.e.f. May 1980. His employment with the respondent Bank came to an end w.e.f. 30.07.1997. The appellant raised the industrial dispute, which was referred by the Government of India to the CGIT vide reference dated 19.08.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the ID Act') to answer the following dispute: "Whether the claim of Sh. Mohd. Salahuddin for regularization against the Management of State Bank of Mysore, Davangere, is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?'
HC-KAR
3. The said reference was amended and reframed by order dated 02.02.2011 which reads as under :- "Whether the action of the management or State Bank of Mysore in terminating the services of Sh. Mohammed Salahuddin w.e.f. 30.07.1997 and in not regularizing his services, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?"
4. In his cross-examination the petitioner has admitted that he joined as temporary employee in the year 1980 in the Kerebelichi Branch, Shimoga District. Between 1980 to 1983 he had worked only for 186 days in that Branch. Between 05.02.1985 to 16.03.1985 he had worked only for 22 days at Kulambi Branch of the Bank and worked for 62 days between 03.04.1984 to 10.08.1984 at Harihar Branch, etc. His cross examination has been extracted in paragraph 5 of the impugned award dated 11.06.2020, in none of the particular year he had rendered continuous service of 240 days. Hence his services came to an end w.e.f. 30.07.1997
5. Considering this fact the reference has been answered against the appellant/workman. The provisions of Section 25 of
HC-KAR
the ID Act would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. We exercise only limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the CGIT. We are not supposed to revaluate or re-examine the evidence.
6. The CGIT on examination of the evidence on record has noted that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in any particular year of employment. We find no error in the impugned Award dated 11.06.2020 passed by the CGIT in CR No.33/2010, which is why the present petition is dismissed.
7. In view of the petition having been dismissed, interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18