Delhi High Court Upholds SBI Waterboy’s Illegal Termination Claim for Completing 240 Days; Replaces Reinstatement and Back Wages With Compensation After Three-Decade Delay and Brief Service
Delhi High Court Upholds Illegal-Termination Finding Against SBI but Sets Aside Reinstatement After Three-Decade Delay and Two-Year Service
Facts
The State Bank of India filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a Labour Court award dated 24 May 2006 in I.D. No. 190/1999. The Labour Court had held the termination of Vijay Singh illegal and directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Vijay Singh had been engaged by SBI at its Baraut Branch as a waterboy-cum-messenger from 19 July 1994. His services were terminated on 10 October 1996.
The Labour Court found that he had worked for more than 240 days, performed duties of a full-time worker, and was terminated without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It consequently directed reinstatement from 11 October 1996 with 50% back wages.
During the writ proceedings, operation of the award was stayed in 2010 subject to SBI depositing 50% of the back wages before the High Court.
Issues
The principal questions before the Delhi High Court were:
- Whether Vijay Singh had discharged the burden of proving that he had actually worked for at least 240 days during the 12 months preceding termination.
- Whether SBI’s contention that he worked merely 2–3 hours per day as and when required defeated his claim of continuous service.
- Whether a temporary/daily-wage employee appointed without following regular recruitment procedure or against a sanctioned post was nevertheless entitled to the protection of Section 25F.
- Whether termination without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was illegal.
- Whether reinstatement with 50% back wages should follow automatically from violation of Section 25F.
SBI’s Arguments
SBI contended that Vijay Singh had been engaged only for 2–3 hours per day, as and when required, and was paid only for the work actually performed. It therefore argued that he had never completed 240 days of continuous service.
The Bank further argued that the initial burden of establishing 240 days rested upon the workman and that he had failed to discharge it through reliable evidence.
SBI challenged the Labour Court’s reliance on photocopies of duty charts, the Peon Book and other records, asserting that the documents had been disputed and described by the Branch Manager as forged or unauthenticated.
It also argued that Vijay Singh:
- had not been appointed through the prescribed recruitment process;
- did not occupy a sanctioned post; and
- was merely a temporary employee engaged to meet branch exigencies.
Alternatively, SBI argued that even if Section 25F had been violated, reinstatement was not automatic, particularly for a temporary or daily-wage worker.
Workman’s Arguments
Vijay Singh contended that he had continuously worked at the Baraut Branch from July 1994 until October 1996 and had completed substantially more than 240 days.
He relied heavily upon SBI’s own internal records.
Most importantly, a communication dated 30 December 1997 from SBI’s Baraut Branch Manager expressly recorded that Vijay Singh had worked on daily wages as a waterboy for 712 days up to September 1996 and had submitted 412 conveyance bills for visits to the Treasury, Telegram Office, other banks and similar destinations.
He also relied upon an identity certificate dated 1 August 1995 recording that he was working as a temporary Messenger/Waterboy on daily wages and authorizing him to perform outdoor duties on behalf of the Bank.
According to the workman, his termination without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was therefore a direct violation of Section 25F.
He argued that SBI could not escape the statutory requirements merely by describing him as a temporary or daily-wage employee.
Analysis of the Law
1. Burden of proving 240 days initially lies on the workman
The High Court accepted the proposition that the initial onus lies upon the workman to establish that he actually worked for 240 days during the 12 months preceding termination.
Relying upon R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, the Court explained that a workman must ordinarily enter the witness box and produce cogent oral or documentary evidence.
However, daily-wage workers often do not possess appointment letters, wage receipts, attendance registers or termination letters. Once appropriate evidence is produced and relevant records are shown to be within the employer’s control, the evidentiary assessment must take that practical reality into account.
The Court also relied on Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, reiterating that Section 25B creates the statutory test of 240 days of actual work during the relevant 12-month period.
2. Vijay Singh discharged that burden
The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Labour Court’s conclusion.
The documentary record included:
- duty charts reflecting 712 days;
- SBI’s own internal correspondence;
- 412 conveyance bills;
- Peon Book entries;
- the identity certificate; and
- admissions made by SBI’s witness, MW-1.
The Bank’s own Branch Manager had expressly written that Vijay Singh worked as a daily-wage waterboy for 712 days and undertook hundreds of outdoor assignments.
The High Court therefore held that the Labour Court had sufficient material to conclude that the 240-day requirement was satisfied.
3. Photocopies were not the sole basis of the finding
The Court rejected SBI’s argument that the finding rested improperly upon disputed photocopies.
It emphasized that the finding was independently corroborated by SBI’s own 30 December 1997 communication, conveyance bills, Peon Book entries and MW-1’s testimony.
Moreover, SBI possessed the original attendance and duty records but failed to produce them.
Thus, the evidence had been assessed cumulatively rather than on the strength of photocopies alone.
4. Working only part of the day did not defeat continuous service
The Bank’s contention that Vijay Singh worked only 2–3 hours daily did not negate the evidence showing sustained engagement.
The Court particularly relied upon the 712 days of engagement and 412 conveyance bills to conclude that he was regularly utilized for several banking duties rather than merely called occasionally to supply water.
Temporary Appointment and Section 25F
A significant aspect of the judgment is the distinction between a claim for regularization and a challenge to illegal retrenchment.
SBI argued that Vijay Singh had not been appointed through a prescribed recruitment process or against a sanctioned post.
The High Court held that this did not authorize SBI to terminate him without following Section 25F.
The material showed that, irrespective of nomenclature, Vijay Singh:
- was engaged by SBI;
- performed duties assigned by SBI; and
- was paid for those services.
Therefore, the absence of regular recruitment or a sanctioned post did not eliminate the statutory retrenchment protection available to him.
Since SBI admittedly did not give the required notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation, his termination was illegal.
Precedent Analysis
R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer
The Supreme Court precedent established the evidentiary framework for proving 240 days of service.
The initial burden lies on the workman, but the nature of daily-wage employment must be recognized because documentary employment records generally remain with the employer.
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas
The Court relied upon this authority for the proposition that the workman bears the burden of proving 240 days of work within the relevant statutory period under Section 25B.
International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union
This case governed the scope of writ interference.
The High Court cannot sit as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence merely because another conclusion is possible. Interference is justified where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, patently illegal or jurisdictionally defective.
The Labour Court’s 240-day finding was supported by evidence and therefore could not be disturbed merely by reassessing its evidentiary weight.
Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh
This precedent was applied at the relief stage.
It establishes that even where termination is procedurally illegal, reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic. The Court may mould relief based on length of employment, lapse of time and surrounding circumstances.
Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
The Supreme Court similarly recognized the modern shift away from automatic reinstatement in every case of illegal termination.
Depending upon the factual situation, monetary compensation may better serve the ends of justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court ultimately separated the case into two distinct questions: legality of termination and appropriate relief.
On legality, Vijay Singh succeeded completely.
The Labour Court’s finding that he completed 240 days was supported by SBI’s own records, including the unusually significant admission that he had worked for 712 days and submitted 412 conveyance bills.
Accordingly, his termination without Section 25F compliance was illegal.
On relief, however, the High Court found reinstatement inappropriate.
The Court considered that:
- termination occurred in 1996;
- approximately three decades had elapsed;
- Vijay Singh had originally worked for only about two years;
- he was neither regularly recruited nor appointed against a sanctioned post; and
- SBI had already paid him ₹9,87,925 up to 6 April 2026 under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
These circumstances justified substituting compensation for reinstatement.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that Vijay Singh’s termination was illegal and unjustified because he had established the requisite continuous service and SBI terminated him without complying with Section 25F.
However, the Court modified the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Instead, it directed that the amount already deposited by SBI before the High Court pursuant to its order dated 14 July 2010 be released to Vijay Singh as lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
The Court expressly clarified that no further amount or allowance would be payable to the workman.
Case Details
Case: Deputy General Manager, State Bank v. Vijay Singh
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2664/2007
CNR: DLHC010332412007
Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
Reserved On: 29 July 2026
Pronounced On: 8 September 2026
Impugned Award: Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, I.D. No. 190/1999, dated 24 May 2006
Original Relief: Reinstatement with 50% back wages
Final Relief: Amount deposited pursuant to the High Court’s 14 July 2010 order to be released as lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages; no further amount payable
Result: SBI’s challenge to the finding of illegal termination rejected, but Labour Court’s reinstatement and back-wages relief modified to monetary compensation.
