Dy.General Manager State Bank vs Vijay Singh
- Court
- Delhi High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on:29.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on:08.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 08.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010332412007
+ W.P.(C) 2664/2007 & CM APPL. 15372/2013, CM APPL.
48453/2022, CM APPL. 41415/2026
DY.GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK ..... Petitioner
versus
VIJAY SINGH ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Standing Counsel for SBI
with Mr. Akshit Kapur, AoR.
For the Respondent : Mr. N.D. Pancholi, Mr. Vishal Pancholi and
Mr. Deepak Mayur, Advocates
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India assailing order dated 24.05.2006 (hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 1 of 22
‘ impugned order ’) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II (hereinafter
‘ Labour Court ’) in I.D. No. 190/1999 whereby the learned Labour
Court held the respondent’s termination illegal and awarded
reinstatement with 50% back wages.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent workman was engaged by the
petitioner bank as a waterboy-cum-messenger at its Baraut branch from
19.07.1994 onwards. The services of the workman were terminated by
the petitioner bank on 10.10.1996.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent workman raised an industrial
dispute and the following reference was made to the learned Labour
Court on 30.08.1999:
“Whether the action of the Management of the SBI in terminating
the services of Shri Vijay Singh ex-temporary messenger-cum-water
boy w.e.f. 11.10.96 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief he is
entitled to and from what date?”
4. The learned Labour Court, upon consideration of the material on
record, held that the respondent had established that he had worked for
more than 240 days and had performed the duties of a full-time worker.
It further held that the termination, having been effected without
compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was
illegal. Thus, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned award answered
the reference as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 2 of 22
“The action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating
the services of Shri Vijay Singh, Ex-Temporary/Water Boy w.e.f.
11.10.96 is neither just nor fair and nor legal. The management
should reinstate the workman applicant w.e.f. 11.10.96 with 50%
back wages and make payment of the entire arrears within two
months from the date of publication of the award. In case of default
the workman applicant will be entitled to get 10% interest on his
accrued back wages."
5. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. This
Court, vide order dated 14.07.2010 stayed operation of the impugned
award, subject to deposit of 50% back wages, by the petitioner, before
this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Tribunal erred in directing reinstatement, as the respondent was
engaged only for 2–3 hours a day, as and when required, between
19.07.1994 and 10.10.1996 and was never in continuous service. He
submitted that the petitioner had specifically pleaded this position in its
written statement.
7. He submitted that under Section 25B(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, a workman can be deemed to be in continuous service only
upon establishing that he had actually worked under the employer for
not less than 240 days during the twelve months preceding the date of
termination.
8. He submitted that the onus of establishing that the workman had
completed 240 days of actual service in the preceding year lies upon the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 3 of 22
workman himself. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas : (2004) 8 SCC 195.
9. He submitted that the respondent failed to discharge the aforesaid
burden and did not produce any cogent or reliable evidence establishing
that he had actually worked for 240 days during the twelve months
preceding his termination. He further submitted that the respondent was
engaged only for limited periods and, except for payment towards
supply of water for the work actually performed, no regular wages or
salary were paid to him. Thus, there was no material to establish any
regular master-servant relationship between the parties.
10. He submitted that the learned Tribunal nevertheless proceeded to
hold that the respondent had worked for 240 days, primarily on the basis
of photocopies of duty charts, Peon Book and other documents, despite
the petitioner having specifically denied the said documents and the
Branch Manager having deposed that the alleged certificate and other
documents relied upon by the respondent were forged and
unauthenticated. He submitted that the learned Tribunal thus erred in
treating the said documents as proved and in shifting the burden upon
the petitioner, when the initial burden to establish completion of 240
days squarely lay upon the respondent workman.
11. He submitted that the respondent was neither appointed pursuant
to any prescribed recruitment procedure nor against any sanctioned
post. He submitted that the petitioner Bank engaged temporary
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 4 of 22
employees in the subordinate cadre at its branches only to meet
exigencies arising from the leave or illness of regular employees and
other urgent requirements of the branch. He submitted that an
appointment made in violation of the applicable recruitment rules
cannot confer any enforceable right to continue in service or warrant
reinstatement. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Haryana Tourism
Corporation Ltd. v. Fakir Chand : (2003) 8 SCC 248 and National
Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh : (2006) 5 SCC 493.
12. He submitted that, without prejudice, even where termination of
a daily-wage worker is found to be in violation of Section 25F,
reinstatement is not an automatic consequence. He submitted that
particularly where the appointment is temporary and the illegality is
procedural, monetary compensation may appropriately be awarded in
lieu of reinstatement. He submitted that thus, the learned Labour Court
erred in awarding reinstatement with 50% back wages to the respondent
workman.
13. Per Contra , the Learned counsel for the respondent workman
submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly held that the respondent had
continuously worked at the petitioner Bank's Baraut Branch from
18.07.1994 to 10.10.1996 and had completed more than 240 days of
service. He submitted that the respondent was engaged as a Waterboy-
cum-Messenger and his duties included supplying water, carrying dak,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 5 of 22
telegrams and posts to the post office and other banks, visiting the
Treasury and performing other outdoor duties of the Bank.
14. He submitted that the respondent had placed sufficient
documentary evidence on record to establish his continuous service and
completion of 240 days. Reliance was placed upon the letter dated
30.08.1997 issued by the Regional Office, Meerut, calling upon the
Baraut Branch to furnish details of the dates on which the respondent
had worked, the mode of payment and copies of bills, and the
consequent reply dated 30.12.1997 of the Branch Manager stating that
the respondent had worked as a daily-wage Waterboy for 712 days up
to September 1996 and had submitted 412 conveyance bills for visits to
the Treasury, Telegram Office and other banks.
15. He submitted that the aforesaid reply of the Branch Manager was
an admitted document and was specifically relied upon by the
respondent in his Statement of Claim and evidence. The management
did not deny the said document or the respondent's assertion regarding
712 days of service. The respondent had also placed on record copies
of the attendance/duty charts, conveyance bills and Peon Book entries
showing him performing messenger duties, none of which was
specifically denied by the management.
16. He further submitted that the evidence of MW-1 itself
corroborated the respondent's case. MW-1 admitted that the bills
relating to the respondent's tenure had been passed by him and that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 6 of 22
bills included those relating to water-carrier services, rickshaw charges,
delivery of Government scrolls to Government departments and other
outdoor services. Thus, the documentary and oral evidence established
that the respondent was not merely engaged for 2–3 hours for supplying
water, as alleged by the management, but was performing regular duties
of the Bank.
17. He submitted that the identity certificate dated 01.08.1995 issued
by the Baraut Branch also recorded that the respondent was working as
a temporary Messenger/Waterboy on daily wages. The certificate was
issued to enable the respondent to undertake outdoor duties as a
representative of the Bank. He submitted that the management had not
specifically denied the issuance of the said certificate in its written
statement.
18. He submitted that the respondent's services were terminated on
10.10.1996 without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation,
despite his having completed the requisite period of continuous service.
The termination was, therefore, in clear violation of Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submitted that the management could
not defeat the statutory protection under Section 25F merely by
describing the respondent as a temporary or daily-wage employee.
19. He further submitted that the plea of the management that the
respondent was not appointed against a sanctioned post or in accordance
with the recruitment rules was wholly irrelevant to the legality of his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 7 of 22
termination. He submitted that the present proceedings concerned the
respondent's illegal termination and not a claim for regularisation.
Having continuously employed the respondent for several years, the
petitioner was bound to comply with the mandatory provisions
governing retrenchment before discontinuing his services.
20. He submitted that reinstatement was the normal consequence of
termination in violation of Section 25F and that the respondent was also
entitled to appropriate back wages. He further submitted that the
principle governing back wages was that an employee illegally deprived
of service ought to be restored, as far as possible, to the position he
would have occupied but for the illegal termination.
21. He accordingly submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly
answered the reference in favour of the respondent and directed his
reinstatement with 50% back wages. He submitted that the impugned
award called for no interference and the present petition deserved to be
dismissed.
22. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
23. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of interference
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with an Award
passed by the Labour Court is limited. This Court does not sit as a Court
of appeal over findings of fact rendered by the Labour Court.
Interference is warranted only where the findings are perverse, based
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 8 of 22
on no evidence, suffer from patent illegality, or disclose a jurisdictional
error. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in
International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo
Workers Union : (2009) 13 SCC 374 where the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as under:
“47. It is true that in exercising the writ jurisdiction,
the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the
findings and award of the Industrial Tribunal and
therefore, cannot reappreciate evidence. The
findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority
should ordinarily be considered as final. The findings
of the Tribunal should not be interfered with in writ
jurisdiction merely on the ground that the material
on which the Tribunal had acted was insufficient or
not credible.
48. It is also true that as long as the findings of fact
are based on some materials which are relevant,
findings may not be interfered with merely because
another view is also possible. But where the
Tribunal records findings on no evidence or
irrelevant evidence, it is certainly open to the High
Court to interfere with the award of the Industrial
Tribunal .”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Adverting to the merits of the present case, the first issue that
arises for consideration is whether the respondent had established that
he had actually worked for not less than 240 days during the twelve
months preceding his termination so as to attract the protection under
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
25. It is the case of the petitioner Bank that the respondent was
engaged only for 2–3 hours a day, as and when required, between
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 9 of 22
19.07.1994 and 10.10.1996 and was paid only for the work actually
performed. It was, therefore, contended that the respondent was never
in continuous service and had failed to establish that he had actually
worked for 240 days during the relevant period.
26. It is settled law that the initial onus of establishing that a
workman had actually worked for 240 days during the twelve months
preceding the date of termination lies upon the workman. Reliance in
this regard is placed upon the judgment in R.M. Yellatti v. Asstt.
Executive Engineer : (2006) 1 SCC 106 , where the Hon’ble Apex
Court held as under: -
“17. Analysing the above decisions of this Court, it is
clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms
do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying
general principles and on reading the aforestated
judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly
taken the view that the burden of proof is on the
claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days
in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon
the workman stepping in the witness box. This
burden is discharged upon the workman adducing
cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In
cases of termination of services of daily-waged
earners, there will be no letter of appointment or
termination. There will also be no receipt or proof
of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (the
claimant) can only call upon the employer to
produce before the court the nominal muster roll for
the given period, the letter of appointment or
termination, if any, the wage register, the
attendance register, etc. Drawing of adverse
inference ultimately would depend thereafter on the
facts of each case. The above decisions however
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 10 of 22
make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving
statements made by the claimant workman will not
suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden
placed by law on the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days in a given year. The above
judgments further lay down that mere non-
production of muster rolls per se without any plea of
suppression by the claimant workman will not be the
ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference
against the management. Lastly, the above judgments
lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the Labour Court unless they are
perverse. This exercise will depend upon the facts of
each case.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corpn.,
Faridabad v. Siri Niwas : (2004) 8 SCC 195 observed that the burden
of proof is upon the workman to establish whether he has worked for a
period of 240 days in one year so as to establish he has been in
continuous service with the management. The relevant extract of the
same is reproduced hereinbelow:
“14. For the said purpose it is necessary to notice the
definition of “continuous service” as contained in
Section 25-B of the Act . In terms of sub-section (2)
of Section 25-B if a 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 240 days
within a period of one year, he will be deemed to be
in continuous service. By reason of the said
provision, thus, a legal fiction is created. The
retrenchment of the respondent took place on 17-5-
1995. For the purpose of calculating as to whether he
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 11 of 22
had worked for a period of 240 days within one year
or not, it was, therefore, necessary for the Tribunal
to arrive at a finding of fact that during the period
between 5-8-1994 to 16-5-1995 he had worked for a
period of more than 240 days. As noticed
hereinbefore, the burden of proof was on the
workman. ”
(emphasis supplied)
28. The question, therefore, is whether the respondent discharged the
aforesaid burden by producing cogent material establishing that he had
actually worked for the requisite period during the twelve months
preceding his termination.
29. The learned Tribunal noted that the respondent had placed on
record photocopies of the duty charts showing his engagement for 712
days, which had not been specifically denied by the petitioner Bank.
The Tribunal further noted that the petitioner had itself admitted that the
respondent was engaged during the period from 18.07.1994 to
10.10.1996 for 2–3 hours a day.
30. The learned Tribunal also relied upon the evidence of MW-1, the
Branch Manager, who admitted that the bills relating to the respondent's
tenure had been passed by him and that such bills included those
pertaining to water-carrier services, rickshaw charges, delivery of
Government scrolls to Government departments and other outdoor
services. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly found that the respondent's
duties extended beyond merely supplying water for 2–3 hours a day and
included outdoor duties performed for and on behalf of the Bank.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 12 of 22
31. The respondent’s claim of having worked for 712 days is further
corroborated by the communication dated 30.08.1997 issued by the
Regional Office, Meerut, to the Baraut Branch, whereby the Branch was
directed to furnish the dates on which the respondent had worked, the
mode of payment and copies of the relevant bills. The said
communication reads as under:
" State Bank of India
Region I, Meerut Z.O.
Dt.30.08.1997 Sub: Illegible Representation
of .... Vijay Singh
With reference to your special letter No.22/53
dated the 2nd June, 1997 please go through your
records and advise us all the dates on which Vij'ay
Singh, Ex-Canteen Boy's services were taken at the
Branch on Daily/weekly/monthly basis as a
labourer/water boy and advise us mode of payments
and photo copies of bills paid to Sh. Singh, in this
regard should also be sent to us.
2. Please further also advise us whether any
T.A.Bill(s) etc. have also been paid to Sh. Singh and
if it is so please advise us in details with photo copies
of such bills. Please treat the mater as urgent as the
entire information is to be passed on to New Delhi
L.H.O.
Yours faithfully,·
Sd/-
Asstt. General Manager"
32. In response to the aforesaid communication, the Branch
Manager, Baraut Branch, vide communication dated 30.12.1997,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 13 of 22
specifically stated that the respondent had worked on daily wages as a
Waterboy for 712 days up to September 1996 and had incurred 412
conveyance bills for visiting the Treasury, Telegram Office, other
Banks etc. The said communication reads as under:
"Annexure 5(2)-Admitted by the Bank
AGM
State Bank of India
Region 5
Garh Road, Meerut
29.662 Staff Miscllaneous
30.12.97 With reference to Z.O.SL No.593
dt.30.08.97 we advise that Shri Vijay Singh worked
on daily wages as water boy for 712 days upto
September 1996 at this Branch. The detailed
statement is enclosed for necessary action at Z. 0.
Meerut. In this connection we may also add that he
has taken 412 conveyance bills on different dates for
going to Treasury, Telegram office, other Banks etc,
The detailed statement is of which is also enclosed/or
necessary action at Z. O.Meerut.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
Branch Manager"
33. The aforesaid communication is of particular significance as it
emanates from the petitioner Bank's own Branch Manager and records
the respondent's engagement for 712 days as well as the outdoor duties
performed by him. The respondent specifically relied upon the said
communication in his Statement of Claim and affidavit by way of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 14 of 22
evidence, and there was no specific cross-examination of the respondent
on this assertion.
34. The aforesaid communication, read with the duty charts,
conveyance bills, Peon Book entries and the admissions of MW-1,
furnished sufficient material for the learned Tribunal to conclude that
the respondent had worked for the requisite period. The learned
Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the respondent had completed 240
days of service.
35. Though it has been urged by the petitioner Bank that the learned
Tribunal erroneously relied upon photocopies of the duty charts, Peon
Book and other documents, despite the Branch Manager having stated
in his affidavit that the alleged certificate and other documents relied
upon by the respondent were forged and unauthenticated, the said
contention, by itself, does not displace the material evidence on record.
The learned Tribunal specifically noted that the photocopies of the duty
charts and Peon Book had not been denied by the management and that
the originals remained in the custody of the petitioner Bank, which had
failed to produce the relevant originals. The Tribunal was, therefore,
justified in considering the said documents along with the other material
on record, particularly the Bank's own communication dated
30.12.1997 recording 712 days of service and the admissions of MW1.
36. More importantly, the finding of 240 days was not based solely
upon the disputed photocopies. The same stood corroborated by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 15 of 22
aforesaid communication dated 30.12.1997, the conveyance bills, the
Peon Book entries and the evidence of MW-1. The petitioner Bank,
being in possession of the original attendance and duty records, could
have produced the same to rebut the respondent's claim but failed to do
so. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the
evidence cumulatively and concluded that the respondent had
discharged the burden of establishing 240 days of continuous service.
37. The contention that the respondent was engaged only for 2–3
hours a day also does not, by itself, negate the finding of 240 days. The
material on record, including the Bank's own communication recording
712 days of engagement and 412 conveyance bills, establishes that the
respondent was regularly utilised for various duties of the Bank over the
relevant period. The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly rejected the
petitioner's attempt to characterise the respondent's engagement as
merely intermittent work confined to supplying water.
38. Thus, on a cumulative consideration of the documentary and oral
evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the respondent had
worked for more than 240 days in the relevant period. The said finding
is based on material available on record and this Court while exercising
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot
reappreciate evidence or arrive at findings of fact unless the learned
Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely, which is not
present in this case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 16 of 22
39. It has further been contended by the petitioner Bank that the
respondent was merely a temporary/casual worker and that, except for
payment towards supply of water for the work actually performed, no
regular wages or salary were paid to him. It was contended that there
was consequently no regular master-servant relationship between the
parties.
40. The aforesaid contention, however, does not accord with the
material on record. The communication dated 30.12.1997 issued by the
Branch Manager itself records that the respondent worked at the Branch
as a daily-wage Waterboy for 712 days. The same communication
records his conveyance bills for visits to the Treasury, Telegram Office
and other Banks. MW-1 also admitted that the bills relating to the
respondent's tenure had been passed by him and included bills for
water-carrier services, rickshaw charges and outdoor services. The
identity certificate dated 01.08.1995 issued by the Baraut Branch
further records that the respondent was working as a temporary
Messenger/Waterboy on daily wages.
41. Thus, irrespective of the nomenclature used to describe the
respondent's engagement, the material on record establishes that he was
engaged by the petitioner Bank, performed duties assigned by it and
was paid for the services rendered.
42. Though it has been contended that the respondent was neither
appointed pursuant to any prescribed recruitment procedure nor against
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 17 of 22
any sanctioned post, the same does not empower the petitioner to
terminate the services of the respondent workman without following the
provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act.
43. In the present case, the respondent's services were terminated on
10.10.1996. It is not the petitioner's case that, prior to such termination,
the respondent was issued notice or paid notice pay and retrenchment
compensation in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The learned Tribunal rightly observed that, having completed the
requisite period of continuous service, the respondent could not have
been removed without compliance with the mandatory requirements of
Section 25F.
44. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Tribunal rightly found that
the respondent had established the requisite period of continuous
service and that his termination without compliance with Section 25F
of the ID Act was illegal.
45. However, be that as it may, this Court cannot lose sight of the
fact that mere finding of wrongful termination/discontinuation does not
by itself grant a right of reinstatement or back wages to the aggrieved
employee.
46. It is trite law that a finding of illegality in termination does not,
by itself, mandate reinstatement in every case. The Hon’ble Apex Court
has repeatedly held that reinstatement is not an automatic or mechanical
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 18 of 22
consequence of an order of termination being held illegal and that the
relief must be moulded having regard to the nature of employment,
length of service and the surrounding circumstances of the case. In
Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh : (2021) 19 SCC 227 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that reinstatement with full back
wages is not automatic in every case where termination or dismissal is
found to be not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law
and that the relief can be moulded depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. The relevant extract of the same is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“8. The directions issued by the High Court of
Allahabad for reinstatement were stayed by this
Court on 23-8-2019 [Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal
Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2061] . During the
pendency of these proceedings, the respondent
workman had attained age of superannuation.
Though, there was strong suspicion, there was no
acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of the
workman. However, as the workman has worked only
for a period of about six years and he has already
attained the age of superannuation, it is a fit case for
modification of the relief granted by the High Court.
The reinstatement with full back wages is not
automatic in every case, where
termination/dismissal is found to be not in
accordance with procedure prescribed under law.
Considering that the respondent was in effective
service of the Bank only for about six years and he is
out of service since 1991, and in the meantime,
respondent had attained age of superannuation, we
deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be met
by awarding lump sum monetary compensation. We
accordingly direct payment of lump sum
compensation of Rs 15 lakhs to the respondent,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 19 of 22
within a period of eight weeks from today. Failing to
pay the same within the aforesaid period, the
respondent is entitled for interest @ 6% p.a., till
payment.”
(emphasis supplied)
47. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court In Jagbir Singh v.
Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board : (2009) 15 SCC 327 clarified
that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic, and in appropriate
cases, compensation may be granted instead depending on the facts and
circumstance, relevant paragraph has been reproduced hereinunder: -
“7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court
articulated in many decisions reflected the legal
position that if the termination of an employee was
found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full
back wages would ordinarily follow . However, in
recent past, there has been a shift in the legal
position and in a long line of cases, this Court has
consistently taken the view that relief by way of
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact
situation even though the termination of an
employee is in contravention of the prescribed
procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement
has been held to meet the ends of justice. ”
(emphasis supplied)
48. Hence, it is well crystallised that where the facts so warrant, the
Court is empowered to award monetary compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages, where the facts so warrant, and where
such relief of compensation would better serve the ends of justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 20 of 22
49. This Court though upholds the finding of the learned Tribunal
that the discontinuation of the respondent's services was illegal and
unjustified, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent's
services came to be terminated in the year 1996 and three decades have
elapsed thereafter.
50. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was neither appointed
after following the procedure of recruitment nor was appointed against
any sanctioned post. It is also relevant to note that the respondent
workman was only engaged by the bank for a period of two years and
as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner bank it has paid a sum of
₹9,87,925/- till 06.04.2026 as allowance to the workman under Section
17B of the ID Act.
51. Accordingly, while affirming the finding of the learned Tribunal
on the issue of illegality of the respondent's discontinuation from
service, this Court is of the considered view that the relief granted by
the learned Tribunal warrants modification.
52. In the opinion of this Court, considering the brief service of the
respondent and that he has already been adequately compensated in
terms of Section 17B of the ID Act, ends of justice will be met if the
amount deposited before this Court by the petitioner, in compliance of
order dated 14.07.2010, is directed to be released in favour of the
respondent as lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back
wages.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 21 of 22
53. It is clarified that no further amount/allowance shall stand
payable to the respondent workman.
54. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the petition is
disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 2664/2007 Page 22 of 22