1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.113 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.895 OF 2009 The Asst. General Manager State Bank of India, Pune. .. Appellant Vs. The Deputy General Secretary State Bank of India Karmachari Sena .. Respondents Mr.Atul Damle for the appellant. Mr.Mandar Limaye for the respondents. CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : June 16, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The appellant has preferred this letters patent appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge concurring with the award of the Industrial Tribunal, where the tribunal passed an award in favour of the respondent in the matter of reinstatement of service of two workmen, whose services came to be terminated by the appellant with effect from 31.3.1997. 2. The main ground according to the respondents is that inspite of the workmen having completed 240 days of service in a year, there services were terminated without following due procedure under section 25-F of the S 2 Industrial Disputes Act. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single Judge for the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. The learned Single Judge concurred with the finding of the Industrial Tribunal. 3. The only ground taken up in the appeal is that by virtue of the five settlements recorded under section 2(p) and section 18(1) of the Industrial Tribunal Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 between the State Bank of India and Workman, the concerned workmen were not entitled to any relief. It is contended that as per settlement the workmen, who were in employment till 31st March, 1997 (settlement no.5) will be absorb against permanent vacancy and thereafter the list would lapse and, therefore, as these workmen could not have been absorbed in the employment their services stand terminated. 4. This contention cannot be accepted. The question is not about absorption against permanent vacancy, it pertains to non-compliance of section 25-F wile terminating their services. There is no evidence led by the appellant that the workmen had not completed 240 days of service during the given year and, the purported settlements were not placed on record of the Industrial Tribunal to show that they were not entitled to benefit of protection given under Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, there is no merits in the appeal and hence it is dismissed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J