Samaylal Sahu Vs The Deputy General Manager State Bank Of India

¶1

Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.02.20 17:57:23 +0530

¶2

2025:CGHC:16566

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P.(L) No. 59 of 2014

¶6

Samaylal Sahu, S/o Shri Sriram Sahu, aged about 53 Years, R/o Late Basti Qtr 226, Vidya Nivas Jamnipali, Thana Darri, Korba Distt. Korba C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Deputy General Manager State Bank Of India S/o State Bank Of India Zonal Officer Shankar Nagar Raipur C.G.

¶10

Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner	: Shri S.P. Kale, Advocate.
For Respondent/S.B.I.	: Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

18/02/2026

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an award dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short “CGIT”) in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/23/2002 by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was rejected and the reference made by the Central Government as which is mentioned herein below :-

¶17

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of In Raipur/Korba in terminating the services of Shri Samaylal Sahu, Messenger w.e.f. 15-12-1997 instead of regularizing his service justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”

¶18

was held to be proper and legal.

¶19

-2-

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a messenger with the respondents and he was orally terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. (for short “ID Act”). No inquiry was conducted neither any show-cause notice was given to the petitioner before his termination. Thus, conciliation proceedings was carried out before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central (for short ALC) which discharging power under section 10 of the ID Act sent the above stated reference to the learned CGIT. The petitioner filed his statement of claim before the learned CGIT and also engaged a Counsel. The CGIT is situated at Jabalpur and sometime used to have a Camp Court at Bilaspur. The petitioner being Class-IV employee, on every occasion was not available at CGIT Jabalpur, made an application to carry the proceedings of the said case at Camp Court, Bilaspur. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned CGIT on 18.11.2009, however, the said order was not communicated to the petitioner. As the petitioner had engaged a Counsel and was under impression that this case would be looked after by the Counsel and his presence on every date before the CGIT may not be necessary. Apart from this, he was under impression the proceedings would be carried out at Camp Court of CGIT at Bilaspur. As on couple of occasions, the petitioner could not appear before the learned CGIT Jabalpur and could not examined his witnesses in support of his claim, the learned CGIT has dismissed the statement of claim holding the reference sent by the ALC Central as proper and legal. He further submits that now at present the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, however his statement of claim has not been adjudicated upon by the learned CGIT on merits. At the most, the petitioner may get some monetary compensation instead of reinstatement in case an opportunity is given to him to contest his case before the CGIT on a remand being made by this Court.

¶21

-3-

¶22

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the submission that the petitioner is a Class IV employee, thus unable to contest his case at Jabalpur is misconceived. Every litigant must be conscious enough to prosecute his litigation. In case in hand, the petitioner had engaged a Counsel and it was also the duty of the petitioner to be aware the proceedings of his case before the CGIT. From the order-sheet, it is quite apparent that the petitioner on so many occasion failed to appear before the CGIT and had been casual in prosecuting his case before the CGIT. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and appended documents with this writ petition.

¶24

6. From the perusal of the record it appears that appointment of the petitioner with the respondent as Messenger is not in dispute. Claim and Counter Claim has been raised by the petitioner and respondent in their statement of claim and the written statement so filed. However, the fact remains as no evidence is led by the petitioner before the CGIT, the learned CGIT has rejected the statement of claim of the petitioner, holding the reference sent by ALC just and proper. Perusal of the order-sheets indicates that the petitioner workmen remained absent on many occasions. However, the record also reflect that he had engaged a Counsel. On some of the occasion, his Counsel had made an appearance. The application for carrying out the proceedings of the case at Camp Court of CGIT Court, Bilaspur, was rejected and it does not appear as to whether the petitioner was aware of passing of the order. It is true that every litigant has to be conscious and careful with regard to proceedings the case, however at the same time it could be seen the counsel engaged by him could not prosecute his case in proper manner. A litigant should suffer on account of it. The fact remains that the legality of the termination of the petitioner is not decided after recording of the evidence, and in the interest of

¶25

-4-

¶26

justice this Court feels it appropriate that an opportunity could be give to the petitioner, to prove his statement of claim before the CGIT. Taking into consideration, the relevant facts and circumstances of the case as quoted above, this Court is of the opinion that impugned award dated 06.05.2013 deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The case No. CGIT/LC/R/23/2002 is restored to its original number in the file of Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur.

¶27

7. It is made clear that the parties shall appear before the CGIT on 01^st April, 2026.

¶28

8. The learned CGIT thereafter will provide an opportunity of evidence to the petitioner and fixed the date with consent of the parties for recording of the evidence of the petitioner and on such date, the petitioner shall examined its witnesses to prove statement of claim. Thereafter, the learned CGIT may grant opportunity to the respondents to led its eveidence to prove the pleadings of its written statement.

¶29

9. It is made clear that as its a two decades old case, it is expected that the learned CGIT would culminate the proceedings within a period of six months from 01^st April, 2026 .

¶30

10. It is also made clear that if the parties in person or through Advocate fails to appear on that day, the learned CGIT would be liberty to pass appropriate order in the case.

¶31

11. With these observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶34

Ashish

Samaylal Sahu v. The Deputy General Manager State Bank Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samaylal Sahu v. The Deputy General Manager State Bank Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Equitas Small Finance Bank Vs Chandra Shekhar Diwan

G. S. Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Deshmukh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Vs Mohan Lal Sharma

Sunil Kotadiya Vs Priya Kankariya