ORDER

1. 1. By this common order, W.P. No.6340/2017 (State Bank of India v. Anandilal Dabkara) W.P. No.6331/2017 (State Bank of India v. Vijay Bahadur Sodha), W.P. No.6333/2017 (State Bank of India v. Mukesh Kumar Sharma) and W.P. No.6335/2017 (State Bank of India v. Saubhagyamal Paudwal) shall be decided.

2. The undisputed fact is that the respondent, namely; Anandilal Dabkara (in W.P. No.6340/2017), Vijay Bahadur Sodha (in W.P. No.6331/2017) Mukesh Kumar Sharma (in W.P. No.6333/2017) and Saubhagyamal Paudwal (in W.P. No.6335/2017) have worked for 78 days, 83 days, 81 days and 80 days respectively.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P. No.6340/2017 shall be taken up.

4. It is the case of the respondent that he had worked at Ratlam Branch of SBI temporarily on daily wages basis for a period of 78 days from 29.3.1985 to 16.6.1985. Pursuant to a bi-partite settlement entered into between the management of the Bank and the workmen federation, it was agreed upon between the parties to give an opportunity of permanent appointment on available vacancies to the persons working on daily wages basis in the Bank. The respondent was also called for interview and was placed in the panel of selected candidates. Since he was down below in the panel, therefore he was not given the permanent appointment for want of vacancy and the merit list stood expired on 31.3.1997. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred to CGIT, Jabalpur. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the respondent and has directed for absorption with effect from the date of order of reference with 25% back wages. The main ground for allowing the reference was that the respondent was interviewed in the year 1989, however the select list pertaining to the said interview was not placed on record. The list placed on record is of the year 1997 in which the respondent was placed much below and thus, it was held that the management of the SBI has suppressed the select list of the year 1989.

5. Challenging the Award passed by the CGIT, Jabalpur, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the CGIT has travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties. It was not the case of anybody that multiple merit lists were prepared. It is submitted that after a bi-partite agreement took place between the management of the Bank and All India SBI Staff Federation, process had started for preparing the merit list for giving the permanent appointment to the daily wagers. The procedure continued till 1997 and accordingly, the final merit list was prepared and since the respondent was down below in the said merit list, therefore he was not granted regular appointment. It is further submitted that in absence of any pleading, the petitioner cannot be taken by surprise for the reason that no amount of evidence can be looked into unless a plea is raised. Even otherwise, by referring to the evidence of the respondent, it is submitted that neither in the examination-in-chief nor in the cross-examination the respondent had uttered a single word challenging the consolidated merit list prepared by the petitioner.

6. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent. A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the respondent was posted in Ratlam Branch of SBI, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench of this Court. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore the Principal Seat has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It is further submitted that it is incorrect to say that the petitioner had not led any evidence to show that multiple merit lists were prepared and the merit list of the year 1989 was not produced.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Territorial Jurisdiction :--

8. It is the contention of the counsel for the petit