{"id":252040,"date":"1996-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2"},"modified":"2018-04-20T15:41:25","modified_gmt":"2018-04-20T10:11:25","slug":"central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2","title":{"rendered":"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (7), 181\t 1996 SCALE (5)567<\/div>\n
Author: J S Verma<\/div>\n
Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.SATYAM & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (7)   181\t  1996 SCALE  (5)567\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t THE 31ST DAY OF JULY,1996
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.S.Verma
\n\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami
\nG.B.Pai, Sr.Adv. Mrs.Meera Mathur and O.C.Mathur, Advs. with
\nhim for the appellant
\nT.A.Ramachandran, Sr.Adv. Ms.Asha Nair and K.Ram Kumar,
\nAdvs, with him for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nCentral Bank of India
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
S. Satyam & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nJ.S. VERMA, J. :\n<\/p>\n
     The short\tquestion is  : whether\tthe re-employment of
\nretrenched  workmen   required\tby   Section  25-H<\/a>   of\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act,  1947\t (for  short  the  Act’)  is
\nconfined only  to the category of retrenched workmen covered
\nby Section  25-F<\/a> who have been in continuous service for not
\nless than  one year?  The controversy  arises in view of the
\nwide meaning  of  “retrenchment”  given\t in  its  definition
\ncontained in  Section 2(oo)<\/a> of the Act to cover all kinds of
\nterminations for any reason whatsoever. This wide meaning is
\nsettled by  the\t decision  of  this  Court  in\tPunjab\tLand
\nDevelopment and\t Reclamation  Corporation  Ltd.,  Chandigarh
\netc.etc. Vs.  Presiding Officer,  Labour Court, Chandigarh &
\nOrs. etc.etc.,\t1990 (3) SCC 682. On behalf of the appellant
\n(employer) it  is contended  that the  meaning given  in the
\ndefinition of  retrenchment contained in Section 2(oo)<\/a> is to
\nbe read\t subject to  the context  and the context in Section
\n25-H<\/a> indicates\tthat the  word “retrenched”  in Section 25-H<\/a>
\nhas the\t same meaning  as it  has in  Section 25-F<\/a> and 25-G<\/a>,
\nreading Section\t 25-F<\/a> along with Section 25-B<\/a> since they all
\nform a part of the same scheme in Chapter V A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  argued by\tShri Pai, learned senior counsel for
\nthe appellant that the object of providing for re-employment
\nof retrenched workmen by enacting Section 25-H<\/a> was merely to
\nprovide for  the category  of retrenched  workmen covered by
\nSection 25-F<\/a> who had been in continuous service for not Less
\nthan one  year and  not those  who had\tserved for  a lesser
\nperiod and  to whom  Section 25-F<\/a> did not apply. The present
\ncase relates  to workmen  who admittedly  do not fall in the
\ncategory of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F<\/a> since
\nthey had  all worked  for a  much lesser  period.  For\tthis
\nreason, Shri  Pai contended  that this factor alone excludes
\nthe  applicability   of\t Section  25-H<\/a>\tto  the\t respondents
\n(workmen) in  the present  case. The grant of relief to them
\nby the\tHigh Court  is challenged  primarily on this ground.
\nAlternatively, Shri  Pai contended that the respondents were
\nemployed only  for short  periods between  1974 to  1976 and
\ntherefore, grant  of relief  to them  in the  Writ  Petition
\nfiled long  thereafter in  1982 is unjustified on the ground
\nof laches as well as prejudice to the other workmen employed
\nduring the  intervening period\twho are\t not impleaded. Shri
\nPai also  referred to  the Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial
\nDisputes (Central)  Rules, 1957\t (for short  the Rules’)  in
\nsupport of his submission.\n<\/p>\n
     In reply  Shri Ramachandran,  learned counsel  for\t the
\nRespondents, contended\tthat the  wide meaning\tof the\tword
\nretrenchment’ given  in the  definition contained in Section
\n2(oo)<\/a> cannot be curtailed by the effect of Section 25-F<\/a> read
\nwith Section  25-B<\/a> since  Section 25-F<\/a> merely prescribes the
\nconditions precedent for retrenchment of the workmen covered
\nthereby and  not all  the retrenched workmen. He argued that
\nthere are  no words of limitation in Section 25-H<\/a> to confine
\nits application\t only to  the retrenched  workmen covered by
\nSection 25-F<\/a>.  His reply  to the  alternative submission was
\nthat it\t is not\t a fit\tcase to\t interfere with\t the limited
\nrelief granted by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  no dispute  on facts  and  the  question\t for
\ndecision is only one of construction, mainly of Section 25-H<\/a>
\nof the\tAct. the  controversy relating\tto the\tmeaning\t and
\nscope of  retrenchment’ defined\t in Section 2(oo)<\/a> is settled
\nby the\tdecision of  the Constitution  Bench in\t Punjab Land
\nDevelopment and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. (supra). It was
\nheld :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “While      naturally\t     and
\n     ordinarily it  meant  discharge  of
\n     surplus labour, the defined meaning
\n     was termination  of  service  of  a
\n     workman for  any reason  whatsoever
\n     except  those     excluded\t in  the
\n     definition itself.”\n<\/p>\n
The kind  of termination  of service  of a  workman excluded
\nfrom the  definition is\t specified in Clauses (a) to (c) and
\nit is  not disputed  before us that none of these exceptions
\napplies in the present case. Shri Pai argued the case on the
\nbasis that  the termination  of\t service  of  these  workmen
\namounted to    retrenchment’ as defined in Section 2(oo)<\/a>. It
\nis,   therefore,   clear   that\t  if   the   definition\t  of
\nretrenchment’ given  in Section\t 2(oo)<\/a> is  to be applied for
\nthe construction of Section 25-H<\/a> then the requirement of re-
\nemployment of  retrenched workmen thereby cannot be confined
\nonly to\t the retrenched\t workmen of  the category covered by
\nSection\t 25-F<\/a>,\t under\twhich\tcategory  the\trespondents,
\nadmittedly, do\tnot fall.  The question\t is whether there is
\nany reason to curtail this definition of retrenchment’ while
\nconstruing the meaning of the expression retrenched workmen’
\nin Section  25-H<\/a>. In  other words,  is the provision for re-
\nemployment  of\tretrenched  workmen  confined  only  to\t the
\ncategory covered  by Section  25-F<\/a> and cannot be extended to
\nall  retrenched\t workmen  including  those  not\t covered  by
\nSection 25-F<\/a>,  like the respondents? It is for this purpose,
\nthe appellants\trelied on  Rules 77  and 78 framed under the
\nAct, to suggest that the wider meaning could not be intended
\nin Section 25-H<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     The relevant provisions are as under :
\n\t     “CHAPTER V – A
\n     25-B.  Definition\t of   continuous
\n     service For  the purposes\tof  this
\n     Chapter, –\n<\/p>\n
     (1) a  workman shall  be said to be
\n     in continuous  service for a period
\n     if\t he  is,  for  that  period,  in
\n     uninterrupted  service,   including
\n     service which may be interrupted on
\n     account of\t sickness or  authorised
\n     leave or  an accident  or a  strike
\n     which is not illegal, or a lock-out
\n     or a cessation of work which is not
\n     due to any fault on the part of the
\n     workman;\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  where\t a  workman  is\t not  in
\n     continuous\t  service   within   the
\n     meaning of\t clause (1) for a period
\n     of one year or six months, he shall
\n     be\t deemed\t  to  be  in  continuous
\n     service under an employer –\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a) for  a period of one year,
\n     if the  workman, during a period of
\n     twelve  calendar  months  preceding
\n     the date  with reference  to  which
\n     calculation  is  to  be  made,  has
\n     actually worked  under the employer
\n     for not less than –\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i)  one  hundred  and  ninety
\n     days  in  the  case  of  a\t workman
\n     employed below  ground in\ta  mine;\n<\/p>\n
     and\n<\/p>\n
\t  (ii)\ttwo  hundred  and  forty
\n     days, in any other case;\n<\/p>\n
     XXX\t     XXX\t     XXX
\n     25-F.   Conditions\t  precedent   to
\n     retrenchment  of\tworkmen\t  –   No
\n     workman employed  in  any\tindustry
\n     who has  been in continuous service
\n     for not less than one year under an
\n     employer  shall  be  retrenched  by
\n     that employer until – .\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a) the workman has been given
\n     one  month’s   notice  in\t writing
\n     indicating\t   the\t  reasons    for
\n     retrenchment  and\t the  period  of
\n     notice has\t expired, or the workman
\n     has  been\tpaid  in  lieu\tof  such
\n     notice, wages for the period of the
\n     notice;\n<\/p>\n
\t  (b) the workman has been paid,
\n     at\t the   time   of   retrenchment,
\n     compensation   which    shall    be
\n     equivalent to  fifteen\t   days’
\n     average  pay  for\tevery  completed
\n     year of  continuous service  or any
\n     part  thereof   in\t excess\t of  six
\n     months; and\n<\/p>\n
\t  (c) notice  in the  prescribed
\n     manner is served on the appropriate
\n     Government or such authority as may
\n     be\t specified  by\tthe  appropriate
\n     Government by  notification in  the
\n     Official Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
     xxx\t    xxx\t\t     xxx
\n     25-G. Procedure  for retrenchment –
\n     Where any\tworkman in an industrial
\n     establishment, who\t is a citizen of
\n     India, is\tto be  retrenched and he
\n     belongs to a particular category of
\n     workmen in\t that establishment,  in
\n     the  absence   of\t any   agreement
\n     between  the   employer   and   the
\n     workman   in   this   behalf,   the
\n     employer shall  ordinarily retrench
\n     the workman who was the last person
\n     to be  employed in\t that  category,
\n     unless for\t reasons to  be recorded
\n     the employer  retrenches any  other
\n     workman.\n<\/p>\n
     25-H. Re-employment  of  retrenched
\n     workmen –\tWhere  any  workmen  are
\n     retrenched,   and\t  the\temployer
\n     proposes to  take into  his  employ
\n     any  persons,  he\tshall,\tin  such
\n     manner as\tmay be\tprescribed, give
\n     an opportunity  to\t the  retrenched
\n     workmen who  are citizens\tof India
\n     to\t  offer\t  themselves   for   re-\n<\/p>\n
     employment,  and\tsuch  retrenched
\n     workmen who  offer\t themselves  for
\n     re-employment shall have preference
\n     over other persons.”\n<\/p>\n
     “INDUSTRIAL   DISPUTES    (CENTRAL)
\n     RULES, 1957\n<\/p>\n
     77. Maintenance  of seniority  list
\n     of workmen\t –  The\t employer  shall
\n     prepare a\tlist of\t all workmen  in
\n     the particular  category from which
\n     retrenchment    is\t    contemplated
\n     arranged according to the seniority
\n     of their  service in  that category
\n     and cause\ta  copy\t thereof  to  be
\n     pasted  on\t a  notice  board  in  a
\n     conspicuous place\tin the\tpremises
\n     of the  industrial establishment at
\n     least seven  days before the actual
\n     date of retrenchment.\n<\/p>\n
     78.  Re-employment\t  of  retrenched
\n     workmen-(1)  At   least  ten   days
\n     before the\t date on which vacancies
\n     are  to  be  filled,  the\temployer
\n     shall arrange  for the display on a
\n     notice board in a conspicuous place
\n     in the  premises of  the industrial
\n     establishment  details   of   those
\n     vacancies\tand   shall  also   give
\n     intimation of  those  vacancies  by
\n     registered post to every one of all
\n     the retrenched  workmen eligible to
\n     be\t considered   therefor,\t to  the
\n     address given by him at the time of
\n     retrenchment   or\t at   any   time
\n     thereafter:<\/p>\n
\t  Provided that where the number
\n     of such  vacancies is less than the
\n     number of\tretrenched  workmen,  it
\n     shall be  sufficient if  intimation
\n     is\t  given\t   by\t the\temployer
\n     individually  to\tthe   seniormost
\n     retrenched\t workmen   in  the  list
\n     referred to  in Rule  77 the number
\n     of such  seniormost  workmen  being
\n     double   the    number   of    such
\n     vacancies:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Provided  further  that  where
\n     the vacancy  is of\t a  duration  of
\n     less than\tone month there shall be
\n     no obligation  on the  employer  to
\n     send intimation  of such vacancy to
\n     individual retrenched workmen:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Provided  also   that\t  if   a
\n     retrenched\t    workman,\t without
\n     sufficient\t cause\tbeing  shown  in
\n     writing to\t the employer,\tdoes not
\n     offer himself  for re-employment on
\n     the date  or dates specified in the
\n     intimation\t sent\tto  him\t by  the
\n     employer under  this sub-rule,  the
\n     employer may  not intimate\t to  him
\n     the vacancies  that may  filled  on
\n     any subsequent occasion.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  Immediately\tafter  complying
\n     with  the\tprovisions  of\tsub-rule
\n     (1),  the\t employer,  shall   also
\n     inform the\t trade\tunion  connected
\n     with the  industrial establishment,
\n     of the  number of\tvacancies to  be
\n     filled and\t names of the retrenched
\n     workmen to whom intimation has been
\n     sent under that sub-rule:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Provided that\t the  provisions
\n     of\t this\tsub-rule  need\t not  be
\n     complied with  by the  employer  in
\n     any case  where intimation\t is sent
\n     to\t every\t one  of   the\t workmen
\n     mentioned\tin   the  list\tprepared
\n     under Rule 77″.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t the   rival  contentions,  the\t real  question\t for
\ndecision is  : whether\tthe provision  for re-employment  of
\nretrenched workmen  made in  Section 25-H<\/a> should be confined
\nonly to\t the  category\tof  retrenched\tworkmen\t covered  by
\nSection 25-F<\/a> by restricting the meaning of `retrenchment’ in
\nSection 2(oo)<\/a>  for  this  purpose?  Chapter  V-A  containing
\nSections 25-A<\/a>  to 25-J<\/a>\t was  inserted by  Act No.43 of 1953
\nwith effect  from 24.10.1953.  This Chapter relates to `Lay-
\noff  and   Retrenchment’.  Section   25-F<\/a>   prescribes\t the
\nconditions precedent  to retrenchment of workmen. It applies
\nonly to\t the retrenchment  of  a  workman  employed  in\t any
\nindustry who  has been\tin continuous  service for  not less
\nthan one  year and  not to  any work  mall who\thas been  in
\ncontinuous service  for less  than one\tyear.  Section\t25-B<\/a>
\ndefines continuous  service for the purposes of this Chapter
\nand it\tsays, inter  alia, that a workman shall be deemed-to
\nbe in  continuous service  under an employer for a period of
\none year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar
\nmonths\tpreceding   the\t date\twith  reference\t  to   which
\ncalculation is\tto be  made, has  actually worked  under the
\nemployer for  not less\tthan 240  days. In  other words, tho
\nexpression ‘continuous\tservice for  not less than one year’
\nin section  25-F<\/a> has to be so construed by virtue of Section
\n25-B<\/a>. the  benefit of  applicability of\t Section  25-F<\/a>\tcan,
\ntherefore, be  claimed by  a workman  only if he has been in
\ncontinuous service  for not less than one year as defined in
\nSection 25-B<\/a>.  Any other  retrenched workman  who  does\t not
\nsatisfy this  requirement of continuous service for not less
\nthan one year cannot avail the benefit of Section 25-F<\/a> which
\nprescribes  the\t conditions  precedent\tto  retrenchment  of
\nworkman of this category. Section to retrenchment of workman
\nof this\t category. Section  25-G<\/a> prescribe the procedure for
\nretrenchment and  ordinarily applies the principles of ‘last
\ncome first go’.\n<\/p>\n
     Section  25-H<\/a>   then  provides   for  re-employment  of
\nretrenched workmen.  It says that when the employer proposes
\nto take\t into his  employ and  persons, he  shall, in such a
\nmanner as  may be  prescribed, give  an opportunity  to\t the
\nretrenched workmen  who\t are  citizens\tof  India  to  offer
\nthemselves for\tre-employment, and  such retrenched  workmen
\nwho offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference
\nover other  persons. Rules  77\tand  78\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes (Central)  Rules, 1957\t prescribe the\tmode of\t re-
\nemployment. Rule  77 requires  maintenance of seniority list
\nof  all\t  workmen  in\ta  particular  category\t from  which
\nretrenchment is contemplated arranged according to seniority
\nof their  service in  that category  and publication of that
\nlist.  Rule  78\t prescribe  and\t mode  of  re-employment  of
\nretrenched workmen.  The requirement in Rule 78 is of notice
\nin the\tmanner prescribed to every one of all the retrenched
\nworkmen eligible  to be\t considered for\t re-employment. Shri
\nPai contends  that Rules 77 and 78 are unworkable unless the
\napplication of\tSection 25-H<\/a>  is confined to the category of
\nretrenched workmen  to whom  Section 25-F<\/a>  applies.  We\t are
\nunable to accept this contention.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 77  requires the  employer to maintain a seniority
\nlist of\t workmen in  that  particular  category\t from  which
\nretrenchment  is  contemplated\tarranged  according  to\t the
\nseniority of  their service. The category of workmen to whom
\nSection 25-F<\/a> applies is distinct from those to whom it is in
\napplicable. There  is no practical difficulty in maintenance
\nof  seniority\tlist  of   workmen  with  reference  to\t the
\nparticular  category   to  which   they\t belong.   Rule\t 77,
\ntherefore, does\t not present  any difficulty. Rule 78 speaks
\nof retrenched  workmen eligible to be considered for filling
\nthe vacancies  and here\t also the  distinction based on. The
\ncategory of  workmen-can be maintained because those falling
\nin the\tcategory of  Section 25-F<\/a>  are entitled to be placed
\nhigher than those who do not fall in that category. It is no
\ndoubt true  that persons  who have  been retrenched  after a
\nlonger period  of service  which places\t them higher  in the
\nseniority  list\t are  entitled\tto  be\tconsidered  for\t re-
\nemployment earlier  than those\tplaced lower  because  of  a
\nlesser period  of service.  In this manner a workman falling
\nin the\tlower category\tbecause\t of  not  being\t covered  by
\nSection 25-F<\/a>  can claim consideration for re-employment only
\nif an  eligible workman\t above him  in the seniority list is
\nnot available.\tApplication of\tSection 25-H<\/a>  to the.  Other
\nretrenched workmen not cove-red by Section 25-f<\/a> does not, in
\nAny manner,  prejudice those covered by Section 25-F<\/a> because
\nthe question  of consideration of any retrenched workman not
\ncovered by  Section 25-F<\/a>  would arise  only, if and when, no
\nretrenched workman  covered by Section 25-F<\/a> is available for
\nre-employment. There  is, thus,\t no reason  to\tcurtail\t the
\nordinary meaning  of ‘retrenched  workmen’ in  Section\t25-H<\/a>
\nbecause of  Rules 77 and 78, even assuming the rules framed-
\nunder the Act could have that effect.\n<\/p>\n
     The plain\tlanguage of  Section 25-H<\/a> speaks only of re-
\nemployment of  ‘retrenched workmen’. The ordinary meaning of
\nthe expression\t‘retrenched workmen  must relate to the wide
\nmeaning of  ‘retrenchment’ given  in Section  2(oo)<\/a>. Section
\n25-F<\/a> also  uses the  word ‘retrenchment’ but qualifies it by
\nuse  of\t  the  further\twords  ‘workman’  who  has  been  in
\ncontinuous service  for\t not  less  than  one  year’.  Thus,
\nSection 25-F<\/a>  does not\trestrict the meaning of retrenchment
\nbut qualifies  the category  of retrenched  workmen  covered
\ntherein by use of the further words workman. Who has been in
\ncontinuous service  for not  less than one year. It is clear
\nthat Section  25-F<\/a> applies  to the retread a workman who has
\nbeen in continuous service for not less: one year and not to
\nany workman who has bean in continuous service for less than
\none year; and it does not restrict or curtail the meaning of
\nretrenchment merely  because the  provision therein  is made
\nonly for  the retrenchment  of a  workman who  has  been  in
\ncontinuous service  for not  less the  one year. Chapter V-A
\ndeals with  all retrenchments while Section 25-F<\/a> is confined
\nonly to\t the mode  of retrenchment  of workmen in continuous
\nservice for  not less than one year. Section 25-G<\/a> prescribes
\nthe principle  for retrenchment\t and applies  ordinarily the
\nprinciple of ‘last come first so’ which is not confined only
\nto workmen  who have been in continuous service for not less
\nthan one year, covered by Section 25-F<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  provision is Section 25-H<\/a> which is couched in
\nwide  language\t and  is   capable  of\tapplication  to\t all
\nretrenched workmen  not mere;\tcovered\t by Section 25-F<\/a>. It
\ndoes not  requirement of  the ordinary\tmeaning of  the word
\n‘retrenchment’ used therein. The Provision for re-employment
\nof  retrenched\t workmen  merely   gives  performance  to  a
\nretrenched workmen in the matter of re-employment over other
\npersons. It  is enacted\t for the  benefit of  the retrenched
\nworkmen and  there in  no reason  to restrict  its  ordinary
\nmeaning which  promotes the  object of the enactment without
\ncausing any prejudice to a better placed retrenched workman.\n<\/p>\n
     Chapter V-A  providing for\t retrenchment is not enacted
\nonly for  the benefit  of the  workmen to  whom Section 25-F<\/a>
\napplies but  for all  cases of\tretrenchment and, therefore,
\nthere is  no reason  to restrict application of Section 25-H<\/a>
\ntherein only  to one category of retrenched workmen. We are,
\ntherefore, unable  to accept the contention of Shri Pai that
\na  restricted\tmeaning\t should\t  be  given   to  the\tword
\nretrenchment’  in   Section  25-H<\/a>.   This   contention\t is,
\ntherefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     The other\tsubmission  of\tShri  Pai,  however,  merits
\nacceptance. All\t the  retrenched  workmen  involved  in\t the
\npresent case  were employed  for short periods. Between 1974
\nto 1976.  It was only in 1982 that a writ petition was filed
\nby them\t to claim  this benefits. The other persons employed
\nin the\tindustry during\t the intervening  period of  several
\nyears have  not been  impleaded. Third\tparty interests have
\narisen during  the interregnum. These third parties are also
\nworkmen employed  in the  industry  during  the\t intervening
\nperiod of  several  years.  Grant  of  relief  to  the\twrit
\npetitioners (respondents  herein) may result in displacement
\nof those  other workmen who have not been impleaded in these
\nproceedings, if\t the respondents  have\tany  claim  for\t re-
\nemployment. The laches leading to the long delay after which
\nthe writ  petition  was\t filed\tin  1982  is  sufficient  to
\ndisentitle them\t to the\t grant of  any relief  in  the\twrit
\npetition. Moreover  there is  not even\ta suggestion made or
\nany material  produced to  show that  on the construction we
\nhave made of Section 25-H<\/a>, the respondents would be entitled
\nto get\tany relief in the highly belated writ petition after
\nthe lapse  of several  years by\t way of\t preference over any
\nperson\temployed  during  the  intervening  period.  In\t our
\nopinion, this  alone was  sufficient for  the High  Court to
\ndecline any  relief to them. It was urged by learned-counsel
\nfor the\t respondents that  only a  limited relief  has\tbeen
\ngranted to  the respondents  which need not be disturbed. In
\nour opinion,  the lapse\t of a  long Period  of several years
\nprior to  the filing  of the  writ petition is sufficient to
\ndecline any relief to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     We allow  the civil  appeal for  the reason given by us
\nand  set   aside  the  High  Court  judgments  resulting  in
\ndismissal of  the writ\tpetition filed\tin the High Court by
\nthe respondents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (7), 181 1996 SCALE (5)567 Author: J S Verma Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) PETITIONER: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: S.SATYAM & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/07\/1996 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-252040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCentral Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-20T10:11:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-20T10:11:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2\"},\"wordCount\":3338,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2\",\"name\":\"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-20T10:11:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-20T10:11:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-20T10:11:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2"},"wordCount":3338,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2","name":"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-20T10:11:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-s-satyam-ors-on-31-july-1996-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=252040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}