1 2025:CGHC:59312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 3834 of 2011 1 - State Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch West Korba, Cg ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Vedram Jaiswal S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Jaiswal, R/o. Pankaj General Store, Pragati Nagar, Korba (CG). 2- Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Through its Presiding Officer, CGIT (Central), Jalabpur (MP) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 05.12.2025 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 17.03.2011, published in the Official Gazette, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short “learned CGIT”) in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/183/96. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was engaged by the petitioner–Bank at its Korba Branch on a daily-wage basis. The services of HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.12.10 17:33:47 +0530 2 respondent No. 1 were utilized intermittently by the Bank depending upon the availability of casual work. According to respondent No. 1, he worked regularly as a Messenger from January 1990 to 30.06.1994 at the State Bank of India, West Korba Branch. He claims that he was orally terminated without notice on 01.07.1994. It is further the case of respondent No. 1 that he was paid wages through vouchers and was not paid for holidays. He alleged that his termination was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”). On failure of conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), the reference, as quoted in the award, was forwarded to the learned CGIT, Jabalpur. “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Branch West Korba, Distt. Bilaspur in terminating the services of Shri Ved Ram Jaiswal, S/O Shri Narayan Prasad Jaiswal, ex-messenger is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?" 3. The petitioner filed its written statement contending that respondent No. 1 was engaged purely as a temporary casual employee at the State Bank of India, West Korba Branch, District Bilaspur. His services were utilized intermittently depending on exigencies of casual work in different capacities such as Messenger, Casual Labour, and Sweeper. A detailed chart was filed indicating the number of days respondent No. 1 had worked in each calendar year. It was the stand of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 was not in continuous employment and that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 was applicable. It was further stated that respondent No. 1 had not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year as required under Section 25(B) of the Act of 1947. 3 4. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned CGIT framed the issues in the following manner: “I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the workman is legal and justified? II. To what relief the workman is entitled?” 5. The petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) led his evidence. After assessment of material evidence on record, the learned CGIT allowed the statement of claim and directed the reinstatement of the respondent no. 1 with 50% backwages. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 failed to prove the fact of having worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination. It is submitted that the petitioner’s witnesses categorically detailed the number of days respondent No. 1 had worked which according to counsel clearly shows that he had never worked for more than 240 days in any calendar year. It is further submitted that the engagement of respondent No. 1 was contractual in nature and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 would apply. He further submits that respondent No. 1 continued to receive regularly drawn wages till his superannuation in the year 2024. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the claim may be dismissed. Alternatively, it is prayed that if the Court is not inclined to interfere with the award, the direction of reinstatement with back wages may be substituted with monetary compensation. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramakant Sahu v. Chairman, Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and connected matters, Writ Appeal No. 429/2015, order dated 21.09.2015, 4 and Premdas Manikpuri v. State Bank of India & Anr., WPS No. 2746/2015, pronounced on 08.09.2015. 7. None appeared for the respondents. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents available on record. 9. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 was required to adduce oral evidence to prove the pleadings in his statement of claim and having failed to do so, the claim ought to have been rejected. The record reflects that the learned CGIT framed Issue No. 1 regarding the validity and justification of the termination of respondent No. 1. Ordinarily, the workman is expected to prove his pleadings by oral evidence, however, where the petitioner’s own evidence supports the case of the workman, such evidence can also be considered. The learned CGIT has categorically examined the statement of the witnesses of the petitioner bank and observed in paragraph No. 8 as under: “The management witness has stated in his evidence that he had not worked continuously for a period of 240 days. His evidence is contradictory to himself. Admittedly the workman worked 293 days in 1993. This shows that from Jan 1993 to May 1993, there were 151 days including Sundays. This way from June 1993 to December 1993 he Worked 142 days excluding the period from January 1993 to May 1993. Thus from June 1993 to May 1994 he had admittedly worked more than 240 days during the period of twelve months preceding the date with reference. This shows that he 5 shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year under the provision of Section 25 (B) (2) of the Act, 1947 preceding the date with reference. Admittedly the provision of Section 25-F of the Act was not complied. This is evident that the action of the management in terminating his service without complying the provision of Section 25 F of the Act is not legal and justified. This issue is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.” 10. This finding is based on due appreciation of evidence. Once the learned CGIT concluded that respondent No. 1 had worked for more than 240 days even in the absence of the workman entering the witness box, no interference is warranted, particularly keeping in view the beneficial nature of the legislation. It is also not in dispute that the termination of respondent No. 1 was effected without notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, thereby violating Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold water. The next submission that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 applies is also untenable. The said provision contemplates termination in terms of a contract of employment. There is no material on record to show that any contract existed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The learned CGIT has correctly observed that respondent No. 1 was engaged on daily wages and no document showing any contractual terms was produced. This contention is also rejected. This leads me to the last submission regarding substitution of the relief of reinstatement with back wages by monetary compensation. 6 11. Placing the reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) AIR (SC) 683 and R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the long lapse of time since the termination in 1994 and the admitted position that respondent No. 1 has already attained the age of superannuation in 2024 and during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No. 1 has also received wages under Section 17-B of Act of 1947. 12. In light of these principles and to balance the equities between the parties, the award of reinstatement with back wages is substituted with a lump-sum compensation. Accordingly, in addition to the amount already paid under Section 17-B of of Act of 1947, the petitioner Bank shall pay a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to respondent No. 1. With this modification, the award impugned (Annexure P/1) stands altered to the extent indicated above. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari